mmm 

Jilll 

MammBBaSSa 




wBwftaR^'vifei'jy • v ^' ^ffiiBra «r Jar* 



fitt 



LIBRARY O F CONGRE SS, 



<=&%< 



Y 



31 



<?C<y,y, 



'7 



li 



$ 

{UNITED STATES OF AMKhlCA.jl 



BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



A DEBATE 



THE BEGINNING OF MESSIAH'S REIGN, THE ABRO- 
GATION OF THE MOSAIC LAW, AND FIRST 
PROCLAMATION OF THE GOSPEL; 



BAPTISM: 



ACTION, SUBJECT, AND DESIGN; 

THE "DISCIPLES" OR "CHRISTIAN" CHURCH THE SAME INSTI- 
TUTED BY JESUS CHRIST ON PENTECOST; 

THE DOCTRINE AND POLITY OF 

THE METHODIST CHURCH A FEASIBLE BASIS FOR 

THE UNION OF ALL CHRISTIANS; 



ELD. JOHN A. BROOKS, 

Of Winchester, Kentucky, of the Church of Christ, 
AND 

REV". J. W. FITCH, 



? 



-? 

Of Winchester, Kentucky, of the Methodist Episcopal Cliurch South, 

Commencing Sept. 13th, and ending Sept. 18th, 1869. 

DONALD PADMAN, Phonographer, of Louisville, Ky., Reporter for Mr. Brooks. 
ALBERT SUTLIFFE, Phonographer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, Reporter for Mr. Filch. 




J 

CINCINNATI: 
PUBLISHED BY R. W. CARROLL & CO., 

115 & 117 West Fourth Street. 
1870. 






MODERATORS: 

JUDGE JAMES FREXCH, of Winchester, Ky., President; 
RET. ROBT. HINER, of the Methodist Church, and 
ELD. R. M. GANO, of the Church of Christ. 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1870, by 

E. W. CARROLL & CO., 

[n the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States, for the Southern District 

of Ohio. 



PRELIMINARIES. 



By agreement of the parties, the regulations of the " Camp- 
bell and Rice Debate " were adopted as rules for the government 
of the present Discussion. 

The following propositions are discussed : 

I. With the beginning of Messiah's reign on Pentecost, the 
law of Moses was abolished, and the Gospel in its elements, and 
with its conditions of salvation, first proclaimed. Mr. Brooks 
affirms. 

II. Infant baptism is authorized by the "Word of God. Mr. 
Fitch affirms. 

III. The baptism of a believing penitent is for the remission 
of past sins. Mr. Brooks affirms. 

TV. The sprinkling or pouring of water upon a proper sub- 
ject, by a proper person, in the name of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, is Scriptural baptism. Mr. F. affirms. 

V. The church known at this day as the " Disciples," or " The 
Christian Church," is the church which was instituted on the 
day of Pentecost. Mr. B. affirms. 

VI. The doctrine and polity of the Methodist Church present 
a feasible basis for the union of all Protestant Christians. Mr. 
F. affirms. 



FIRST PROPOSITION. 



• WITH THE BEGINNING OP MESSIAH'S REIGN ON PENTECOST, THE 
LAW OF MOSES WAS ABOLISHED, AND THE GOSPEL IN 
ITS ELEMENTS, AND WITH ITS CONDITIONS 
OF SALVATION, FIRST PROCLAIMED. 



Monday, September 13, 1869. 



DEBATE 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE FIRST 
PROPOSITION. 

Monday, September lZth. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

We have no apology to make for our appearance before you on 
this occasion. We have ever believed that religious controversies, 
properly conducted, could only result in good to those who hear 
with unprejudiced minds. With this conviction, as to the propri- 
ety of religious discussions, we have not hesitated, at any time or 
under all circumstances, properly to discuss questions in which we 
are all so deeply interested. Indeed, but for controversies, the re- 
ligious intelligence, which at present exists in this world, could not 
have been. The religious knowledge of the world to-day is the 
result of the controversies of Martin Luther, Calvin, AVesley, and 
others. 

The proposition before us for discussion this morning is : " That 
with the beginning of Messiah's reign on Pentecost the law of Moses 
was abolished, and the Gospel in its elements and with its con- 
ditions of salvation first proclaimed" In the very statement of 
the proposition, it is conceded that the Messiah's reign did begin 
upon Pentecost. To concede this is to yield all that we claim in 
the proposition. If the Messiah's reign began upon Pentecost, of 
course, the law of the Messiah was first made public then, and that 
law in force before his coining must of necessity have been abro- 
gated. The principle I maintain here to-day is one of vital import- 
ance, and one which will justify us in stating the proof by which 
we arrive at this conclusion. We have first to prove that the 
kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ was established on the day 
of Pentecost ; that the reign of the Messiah began at that time. 
In the second place, that the law of Moses was abolished with the 
beginning of that reign. By the law of Moses, we mean the law 



10 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

given through the mediation of Moses. In Hebrews x : 28, the 
Apostle says : " He who despised Moses's law, died without mercy 
under two or three witnesses." The man that trampled upon, the 
authority of that law, that refused to obey the mandates of that 
law, died without mercy under tw r o or three witnesses. 

Again [John i : 17] : The law w T as given by Moses, but grace and 
truth came by Jesus Christ. We see the distinction is clearly 
drawn between the law of Christ and the law of Moses. This lat- 
ter law, we are to affirm, has been abrogated. In the next place, 
w r e are to prove that the Gospel in its elements was then first pro- 
claimed. By its elements we simply mean the great facts of the 
Gospel as developed in the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, 
and coronation of the Redeemer of the world. In the last place, 
we shall attempt to prove to-day that the conditions of salvation, 
under the reign of Christ, were first proclaimed upon Pentecost ; 
that the terms of pardon as laid down by Jesus Christ and his 
apostles were then first published to the world. To these facts we 
ask your attention this morning. 

I would that this proposition was more simple ; that there was 
but one truth to demonstrate. But we have at least four distinct 
propositions to establish; running, indeed, the one into the other; 
distinct, yet here closely connected. 

On the proposition that the kingdom of Jesus Christ was set up 
on the day of Pentecost, that the reign of Christ began on that day, 
the first argument I shall advance is based upon Daniel ii : 44: 
" In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king- 
dom, which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall not 
be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all 
these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Now, the discussion 
of these propositions would amount to but little, unless the truth 
should be elicited. I have but one purpose, then, in the proposi- 
tion — simply to present the truth, and thus the difference between 
his Church and mine. And I want, just here, to say that I use the 
expression " my Church" simply in a conventional sense ; it is the 
Church of Christ, not ours. Now, my Church, if you will permit 
the expression, claims that the kingdom of Jesus Christ began upon 
the day of Pentecost. My friend claims that the kingdom had 
long been in existence, that it had an existence before, that the 
kingdom was present, and that Jesus was reigning prior to that 
day. The proposition, then, is clearly before us. Jesus com- 
menced to reign on that day, and was coronated King of kings on 
that day. The above are the utterances of Daniel, who lived long 
after the descendants of Abraham received the law upon Sinai ; after 
all those periods in which our pedo-baptist friends have fixed the 
beginning of the kingdom of Jesus Christ. Centuries had elapsed 
since God, through Moses, had spoken to the people, when the 
prophet presented these great facts. He has before the king that 



MR. BROOKES FIRST ADDRESS. 11 

most wonderful image with golden head, silver breast and arms, 
belly and thighs of brass, and legs of iron, which by common con- 
sent referred to the future universal empires of the world. The 
prophet said to the king of Babylon: " Thou art the golden head," 
but another kingdom shall come up after you, represented by the 
silver breast and arms of the image, which shall overcome your 
kingdom, which shall banish it from existence. 

This was the Medo-Persian empire, established by Cyrus, which 
broke in pieces the Babylonian dynasty; this, in the image, was 
represented by the arms and breast of silver. This was succeeded 
by the Greco-Macedonian kingdom or empire, headed by Alexan- 
der the Great, and represented in the image by the thighs and 
belly of brass ; this again by the Roman empire, represented by 
the iron legs and feet with toes of iron and clay mixed. Now, 
says the prophet, in the days of these kings (the Roman emperors) 
the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom that shall never be de- 
stroyed, that shall not be left to other people, but which shall break 
in pieces all these kingdoms. Are these sayings applicable to that 
kingdom of which my friend speaks ? are these things applicable 
to the Jewish kingdom ? Is it possible that that kingdom, after 
having been in existence for centuries, could be in the future? 
"In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a 
kingdom" 

The prophet says: "In the days of these kings, the God of 
heaven shall set up a kingdom which shall stand forever." Did the 
Jewish kingdom stand forever? Is there left behind to-day scarce 
a memory of it ? " It is to break in pieces all these kingdoms," 
(this kingdom, which the God of heaven was to set up, is to break 
in pieces all others). Has the Jewish kingdom done it ? Did the 
kingdom of my friend do it ? Has it not rather been broken in 
pieces since that ? Are we to expect that it will again stand upon 
the earth? 

Again : The prophet represented this kingdom as a little stone cut 
out of the mountain without hands, and rolling on and on, until it 
filled the whole earth, and crushed these kingdoms. Was the 
Jewish kingdom cut out without hands ? Was not that kingdom 
established by the sword ? Was it not by the sword of David and 
of Solomon that it was established ? Could their kingdom be rep- 
resented by the stone cut from the mountain without hands, and 
rolling on and on ? 

We have, then, thus clearly established that, in the days of the 
Cassars, God set up a kingdom which can not possibly be the king- 
dom that my friend represents on this occasion. 

Our second argument leads us to Micah iv: 1, 2: "But in the 
last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of 
the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it 
shall be exalted above the hills ; and people shall flow into it. 



12 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

And many nations shall come and say, Come, and let us go up to 
the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, 
and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths ; 
for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from 
Jerusalem." In this passage the prophet declares that in the last 
days it shall come to pass that the mountain of the house of the 
Lord shall be established above the hills. In the last days of 
what ? Remember, now, the prophet speaks long after the Jewish 
kingdom had been established — long after the law had gone from 
Sinai. " It shall come to pass, in the last days, that the Lord's 
house shall be established in the top of the mountain, for the law 
shall go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusa- 
lem." Is there a period yet in the future, in which, from Zio.i'. 
summit, God is to send forth the law for the delivery of the people? 
Is my friend to assume that God has not completed his revelation, 
and that the last law has not gone forth to govern the people ; that 
the mountain of the house of the Lord is yet to be established ? 
The prophet extends the last days of the Jewish kingdom to the 
day, when the law of Moses shall be succeeded by the law of the 
Lord, which is to go forth from Zion and from Jerusalem. That 
law my friend contends for went forth from Sinai, and the law of 
the Lord, which was to go forth in the last days, was to go forth from 
Zion, and not from Sinai ; but in the last days of what ? The world ? 
No; but of the Jewish kingdom. Then, the law of the Lord was 
to go forth from Zion, and the word from Jerusalem ; this was not 
accomplished until the day of Pentecost. 

We freely admit thus much : that Christ was anointed prophet, 
priest, and king prior to the day of Pentecost ; that, in this sense, 
he was king — he was heir apparent to the throne of the universe. 
On one occasion, when Pilate asked him : "Art thou the king of 
the Jews?" he answered and said: "Thou sayest it." In some 
sense, then, Christ was king at this time. " I am," he said, in an- 
swer to the question. 

Again : That the principles of the kingdom of Christ, the great 
principles not fully developed, made their appearance in the per- 
sonal ministry of Jesus Christ, is not to be doubted. He spoke in 
parables; sometimes in terse expressions; sometimes in utterances 
wrapped in impenetrable mystery, to conceal the principles that 
were afterward to be developed in proclaiming his Word, and that 
were to be interpreted fully by his apostles. 

Let us turn to Matthew xii : 28: " But if I cast out devils by the 
Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." Mat- 
thew xxi: 21: "That the publicans and the harlots go into the 
kingdom of God before you." 

Again, Luke xvi: 16: "The law and the prophets were until 
John. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every 
man presseth into it." Matthew xi : 12 : " And from the days of John 



mr. brooks's first address. 13 

the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
and the violent take it by force." 

Matthew xxiii: 13: "But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men ; for 
ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering 
to go in." Now, then, that in this sense the kingdom of Christ was 
present ; that in this sense people were pressing into that kingdom, 
is not for a moment to be doubted. I do not know how better to 
explain these passages than by an illustration of this kind : Prior to 
the establishment of the Federal Constitution of America, the great 
principles of liberty were present, if you please, in the spirit of the 
people of New England, in the writings of Jefferson, in the burning elo- 
quence of Henry ; yet they were the principles of liberty in an unorgan- 
ized state. The great mass of the people may be said to have pressed 
into this preparation for the republic. It may be said, in this sense, 
of the Tories, that they neither went in themselves, nor would they 
permit others to go in. But would it be claimed, for a moment, that 
that confederacy was perfected until the Constitution was adopted 
by the people in general Congress assembled, and fully proclaimed 
as the law of the land ? When Washington was named by accla- 
mation as President of the United States, he may be said to have 
been President in one sense — the President elect; but did he begin to 
rule until inaugurated as such ? Now, in this sense, the kingdom 
of Christ was present. 

We want to-day simply to know the truth, and exactly how these 
Scriptures are to be interpreted. That they can not mean that 
Christ had begun to reign, that the kingdom had been set up liter- 
ally and truly, that the power of Christ was then being exerted, 
like that of a king upon his throne, is evident from the following 
Scriptures. In Mark ix: 1, Christ says: " Verily, I say unto you, 
that there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste 
of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." 
The coming of that kingdom, then, was yet in the future. Luke 
xxii : 18: "For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit 
of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come." That king- 
dom, then, is yet in the future. Will our friend presume for a 
moment to tell us that, when the Savior said the kingdom shall 
come, the kingdom had already come ? When the Son of God 
says the kingdom shall come, was it not yet to come? Certainly so. 
Beyond all question, then, at this time the kingdom was still in 
the future. 

Again, we build an argument on Luke vii: 28: "For I say 
unto you, among those that are born of Avomen, there is not a 
greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he that is least in the 
kingdom of God is greater than he." If the kingdom was present, 
John was in that kingdom; yet, with all the claims he could pre- 
sent, the Savior says, "But he that is least in the kingdom of God 



14 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

is greater than he." How can John be greatest in the kingdom 
and yet be less than the lea«t in the kingdom? John in the king- 
dom," and yet less than the least ! We can not have any thing 
less than the least. Therefore, without fear of contradiction, we say 
that John was not in the kingdom of Christ ; and if John was not 
in that kingdom, that kingdom was not in existence on the face of 
this earth. 

Again, we base our fifth argument on John iii : 5: "Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." To whom did the Savior speak this language? 
Here was Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews ; not only a Jew, but en- 
titled to every privilege of a citizen, and a ruler in that kingdom 
to which my friend stands committed this morning. But though 
a Jew, and a ruler in the Jewish nation, yet, at the same time, the 
Savior says, " Except ye be born again, ye can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." Will my friend tell us this kingdom is that 
of ultimate glory ? He will not, for every time he administers 
baptism, he quotes this very passage as the authority by which he 
does it. 

Now, our Savior said to those in the Jewish kingdom, "Except 
ye be born of water and of the Spirit, ye can not enter into the 
kingdom of God." Is it possible that a man could be out of the 
kingdom, and yet in it at the same time ? The Son of God says to 
the Jews, Unless ye be born again, ye can not enter into the king- 
dom of God. My friend says they were already in the kingdom ; 
which is right, Mr. Fitch, or the King himself? 

Matthew xvi : 18, 19: "And I say also unto thee, Thou art 
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church ; and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the 
keys of the kingdom of heaven ; and whatever thou shalt bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven." I need not say here that I assume 
the Church of Christ to be the kingdom of Christ ; that the Christian 
is the subject of that kingdom ; that the head of the kingdom is 
the head of the Church ; that the subjects of the one are the members 
of the other. Then he says : " Upon this rock I will build my Church, 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," Are we to sup- 
pose the Son of God would have said this, when that Church had 
been in existence for centuries. I know not by what rule of inter- 
pretation my friend can get clear of the passage before us. If I 
seek out a place to-day. and say, upon this spot I will build my 
house, there is not a Meihodist preacher here who would not un- 
derstand the building to be a future event. And yet, when the 
Lord says, "1 will build upon this rock," they can not understand. 
Why can they not understand? Not because I make the Savior 
mean just what, he says, but that it excludes identity, and with it 
infant baptism, forever. " Upon this rock I will build my Church." 



mr. brooks's first address. 15 

But my friend will say the Savior does not mean this. How does 
my friend know? When I say a thing, do not I mean it? If I 
were to go to him and make a statement, would he not believe it? 
Then why not believe the Son of God when he says, " I will build 
my Church upon this rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it?" 

Once more : The basis of our seventh argument may be found 
in Acts xvi. Before the Savior ascended up into heaven, one of 
the apostles said, " Master, wilt thou at this time restore the king- 
dom unto Israel ?" Their idea was, that Christ had come into this 
world to continue the reign of David — to literally sit upon the 
throne of David — simply to establish a temporal kingdom. Hence, 
when the Savior was in their presence, they asked him the question, 
"Wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom unto Israel?" Un- 
questionably, up to this time it had not been restored. After Christ 
had risen, and just before he was about to ascend into heaven, his 
apostles asked whether the kingdom should then be restored. Had 
it been restored, when the disciples themselves did not know it? 
Now, up to this hour, that kingdom had not been established. 
Upon no other hypothesis can my friend reconcile the Scriptures. 
Does he claim that the kingdom of God had already been estab- 
lished? that Christ had been reigning upon his throne? Then 
how can he possibly reconcile these Scriptures to this view ? 

Matthew xix: 28: "Then answered Peter and said, We have 
forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefor? And 
Jesus said unto them : That ye which have followed me, in the re- 
generation, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, 
ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel." Then you shall sit upon twelve thrones. Had the apostles 
taken their seats on these thrones before Pentecost, and begun to 
rule the tribes of earth? Certainly not. Christ, then, had not 
taken his seat upon his throne, and his apostles had not begun to 
rule. 

Hebrews i: 3: "So when he had by himself purged our sins, 
and sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Again, 
Hebrews x: 12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice 
for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God." 

Was his kingdom established until he took his seat upon the 
throne of the universe? Here, the Apostle tells us, he did that 
after purging us of our sins. Now, then, Christ did not take his 
seat upon the throne until after his death and burial and ascension 
into heaven ; until he had purged us of our sins ; until he had 
offered himself a sacrifice for our sins. Not until then did he take 
his seat. How, then, could the kingdom of Christ have begun two 
thousand years prior to this time ? 

We will now point you to the day when that kingdom com- 
menced. ,We grant you that Christ was anointed King ; that he 



16 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

was heir-apparent to the throne ; that in his parables, and in terse 
Bayings, the great principles of the kingdom had been thrown out, 
but not in a manner for the world to comprehend them. That 
kingdom could not have been in existence until he took his seat. 
In the light of these passages, this clearly did not occur until after 
the death of Christ. From the time of his death to the day of Pen- 
tecost, there was, no time when that kingdom could have commenced. 
That it commenced after this, no one will maintain. Now, then, 
for one moment let us look at some of the passages which bear upon 
this question. Acts ii: 16, 17: Then Peter, standing up in the pres- 
ence of the people, and referring to the outpouring of the Spirit, 
said, "This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel : and it 
shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, 1 will pour out of 
my Spirit upon all flesh," etc. Again, Acts xi: 15: "And as I 
began to speak, the Holy Ghost ieil on them as on us at the 
beginning." 

This that you now see and hear, this manifestation of the Spirit, 
is that " which was spoken of by the prophet Joel, that it shall 
come to pass in the last days." The last days of what? The last 
days of the Jewish kingdom. It could not have meant any thing 
else. 

Now then, Peter, after this, in justification of his act in preaching 
to the Gentiles, said that the Spirit of God had fallen upon them 
(the Gentiles) as on us at the beginning. The Spirit, he said, fell 
upon them as on us at the beginning. The beginning of what? The 
beginning of the Jewish kingdom? Certainly not. The beginning 
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ — the beginning of Christ's reign. 
This can possibly be no other beginning than that. The inspired 
Word fixes this time as the last days of one dispensation — of the 
Jewish kingdom — and the beginning of that of Christ. The begin- 
ning of Christ's reign is in perfect harmony with all this. The 
Savior, you will remember, during his personal ministry, sent his 
disciples among the Jews, and said: "Go to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. Go not into the way of the Gentiles." But now, 
when the Savior had been raised from the dead, he called his 
apostles around him, and sent them forth under this commission: 
" Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." 
'* Teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit," "Thus did it behoove Christ to sutler, 
and to rise from the dead, that repentance and remission of sins 
might be preached in his name among all uations." " But," said the 
Savior, " tarry you in Jerusalem until you are endued with power 
from on high." You are not now competent for that work; tarry 
until you are inspired and empowered by the Spirit from on high. 
How were they to be endued with that power? The Spirit was to 
descend upon them, and they were to be guided into all truth. 

The Savior on one occasion said — John xiv: 26: "The Holy 



MR. brooks's first address. 17 

Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach 
you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever 
I have said unto you." In harmony with this, the disciples were 
assembled upon Pentecost, and the Spirit of God descended upon 
them. The great Apostle stood up and began to preach Jesus and 
him crucified. He unfolded to them the fact that they had mur- 
dered the Son of God — that they had crucified the Kedeemer. And 
when the people heard it, they cried out, " Men and brethren, what 
shall we do?" The Apostle said, " Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." 
This was the first time, under that commission, that they began to 
speak. They did not utter one syllable after the Savior gave them 
that commission till now. They had anxiously waited for the 
promised Spirit to be poured out from heaven upon them ; and 
now, inspired by the Spirit of God, they stand up as ministers 
plenipotentiary of heaven, and, for the first time, they begin to 
proclaim the Gospel. Now, then, the prophecies had been ful- 
filled. Daniel said: "The kingdom of God shall be set up in the 
days of these kings." Its great principles had been set forth in 
parables that he uttered, but the kingdom was not set up until Pen- 
tecost. " In the days of these kings (the Roman emperors) the 
God of heaven shall set up a kingdom." 

The prophecies of David, the Apostle reasoned, could only refer 
to Jesus Christ. He only had not seen corruption. He only had 
burst the barrier of death, and now the Apostle says : " The Lord 
Jesus, whom you have crucified, is made both Lord and Christ." 
He has now made the atonement, and gone into heaven, sprink- 
ling the blood of the atonement before the mercy-seat, and has 
purged us of our sins. He has made one sacrifice of himself for- 
ever, and has now taken his seat on the throne of the universe. 
He is all in all. All authority, all in heaven and in earth, is now 
given into his hands: and, more than that, the prophecy which 
Micah uttered is now fulfilled — " The law shall go forth from 
Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." John, indeed, 
as we have seen, had preached in the wilderness ; but now, for 
the first time in the world, the Gospel of Christ is preached from 
Jerusalem; the kingdom of Jesus Christ is established, the Lord 
begins to reign, and his kingdom is set up permanently in the 
earth. 

We propose to invite your attention to some authorities that will 
not be rejected even by my friend. Dr. Clarke, in his comment on 
Mat! hew xxvi: 29, says: 

Verse 18. "'I will not drink of the fruit of the vine.' That is, 
before the time of another Passover, the Holy Ghost shall descend, 
the Gospel of the kingdom be established, and the sacramental 
supper shall take the place of the paschal lamb." 
2 



18 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Again, in his comment on Hebrews viii : 6, he says : 

" The Old Covenant referred to earthly things, the New Covenant 
to heavenly; the Old Covenant had promises of secular good, the 
New Covenant of spiritual and eternal blessings. As far as Chris- 
tianity is preferable to Judaism, as far as Christ is preferable to 
Moses, as far as spiritual blessings are preferable to earthly bless- 
ings, as far as the enjoyment of God throughout eternity is prefera- 
ble to the communications of earthly good during time, so far does 
the New Covenant exceed the Old." 

This language is direct and conclusive. 

But I want to invite your attention to a passage from Albert Barnes, 
one of the most distinguished writers of this age, a member of the 
Presbyterian Church, and eminent for his piety and learning. (See 
Ecce JEcclesia, p. 449) : 

" The general purpose of this Epistle [to the Hebrews] is to pre- 
serve those to whom it was sent from the danger of apostasy. Their 
danger on this subject did not arise so much from persecutors as 
from the circumstances that were fitted to attract them again to the 
Jewish religion. The Temple, it is supposed — and, indeed, it is 
evident — was still standing, the morning and evening sacrifice was 
still offered, the splendid rites of that imposing religion were still 
observed, the authority of the law was undisputed, Moses was a 
lawgiver sent from God, and no one doubted that the Jewish form 
of religion had been instituted by their forefathers in conformity 
with the directions of God ; their religion had been founded amidst 
remarkable manifestations of the Deity, in flames, and smoke, and 
thunder ; it had been communicated by the ministrations of angels ; 
it had on its side and in its favor all the venerableness and sanction 
of a remote antiquity, and it commended itself by the pomp of its 
ritual and by the splendor of its ceremonies. On the other hand, the 
new form of religion had little or nothing of this to commend it. 
It was of recent origin; it was founded by the Man of Nazareth, who 
had been trained up in their own land, and who had been a car- 
penter, and who had had no extraordinary advantages of education ; 
its rites were few and simple; it had no splendid temple-service, 
none of the pomp and pageantry, the music and the magnificence of 
the ancient religion ; it had no splendid array of priests in magnifi- 
cent vestments, and it had not been imparted by the ministry of 
angels; fishermen were its ministers, and by the body of the nation 
it was regarded as a schism or heresy that enlisted in its favor only 
the most humble and lowly of the people. In these circumstances 
how natural it was for the enemies of the Gospel in Judea to con- 
trast the two forms of religion, and how keenly Christians would 
feel it! All that was said of the antiquity and the divine origin 
of the Jewish religion they knew and admitted ; all that was said 



MTR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 19 

of its splendor and magnificence they saw, and all that was said of 
the humble origin of their own religion they were constrained to ad- 
mit also. Their danger was not that arising from persecution ; it 
was that of being affected by considerations like these, and of re- 
lapsing again into the religion of their fathers, and- of apostatizing 
from the Gospel; and it was a danger which beset no other part 
of the Christian world." 

Thus these distinguished writers clearly demonstrate that the old 
was to pass away, and the new was to take its place at this time by 
the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that there was danger 
of the early Christians apostatizing and returning to the old faith. 

Just another extract I want to read in your hearing, from Dr.. 
Philip Schaff, one of the most eminent ecclesiastical writers on this 
continent. I read from page 59 of his "History of the Christian 
Church" : 

" The Jewish Pentecost, the feast of the first fruits and of the 
giving of the law on Sinai, prefiguring the first spiritual harvest and 
the establishment of the covenant of grace, as the Passover prefig- 
ured the atoning death and the resurrection of Christ, received in the 
year of Christ's death (30) an immeasurable significance, as the 
birthday of the Christian Church, and the beginning of the third era 
in the revelation of the triune God. On this day the Holy Spirit, who 
had hitherto wrought only sporadically and transiently, took up his 
permanent abode in mankind as the Spirit of truth and holiness 
with the whole fullness of saving grace, to apply that grace thence- 
forth to believers by means of the Word and the sacraments, and 
to reveal and glorify Christ in them, as Christ had revealed and 
glorified the Father. 

" While the apostles and disciples, a hundred and twenty (ten 
times twelve) in number, were assembled in or near the Temple for 
the morning devotions of the festal day, and were waiting in prayer 
for the fulfillment of the promise, the exalted Savior poured down 
from his heavenly throne the fullness of the Holy Ghost upon them, 
and founded his Church upon earth." 

Now, this is the testimony of this distinguished historian, a pedo- 
baptist, and yet how explicitly he speaks. This is the i( birthday of 
the Church," "On this day Christ founded his Church on the earth." 
Then, in the estimation of these gentlemen, Christ began to reign 
upon that day, and established his kingdom on that day, and the 
apostles of Jesus Christ, his embassadors to the world, began to pro- 
claim the Gospel of peace upon that day. 

{Time expired.) 



20 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY, ON FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

It affords me great pleasure to appear before you to-day, for the 
purpose of presenting to your consideration that system of religion 
•which I believe and teach, and to compare my opinions with those 
advanced by my brother. I could have wished, however, that he 
had approached the proposition differently. I believe that it is gen- 
erally admitted that he and those who are connected with him in 
the ministry, have the faculty of traveling very rapidly over scrip- 
tural ground, and whenever they begin at Genesis, they are sure to 
end at Revelations. But, on this occasion, my brother has reached 
the end much sooner than I expected, and I am very glad to find 
h^m, at the close of his speech, in such excellent company — asso- 
ciated with Dr. Clark, Dr. Barnes, and others equally respectable. 
But it does seem strange to me that the champion of a Reformation 
based upon a " Thus saith the Lord" for every thing, should so 
soon leave the Bible, the only source whence we can obtain proof 
to establish any point of doctrine, or to correct the opinions of err- 
ing and fallible men. I do not know whether the worthy gentle- 
man indorsed all that he read from those Doctors of Divinity, but 
I will tell you emphatically that I do not. I am glad, however, to 
find that he has in his possession such a valuable book as that from 
which he quoted. I hope he will read it attentively, for I think it 
will do him good. 

In order that we may get at the subject understands gly, I will 
read the Proposition again : " With the beginning of Messiah's reign 
on Pentecost, the law of Moses was abolished, and the Gospel in Us ele- 
ments, and with its conditions of salvation, was first 'proclaimed!'' I 
will here take occasion to remark, that I shall be under the neces- 
sity, of proceeding with more deliberation than my friend, from the 
simple met that he had his speech worked out beforehand, and I have 
merely, as a respondent, to follow him, and notice the arguments 
which he has presented. 

In his closing remarks he cnlls my attention to the language of 
Christ to Peter, when he said, "L T pon this rock will I build my 
Church," and predicts that I will attempt to explain it away; for 
he says that I know that if the Church was not established until 
afVrthis time, then infant baptism, with all the rest of my doctrines, 
falls to the ground. I presume he feels fully as much anxiety 
about the passage as I do, for he knows that unless he can estab- 
lish his views of the laniruage quoted, that infant baptism, together 
with other doctrines of the Pedobaptists to which he objects, stands 
unshaken. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 21 

Religion, my friends, is the institution of God. It reveals his 
"will and perfections. It declares his truth and righteousness. It 
exhibits the infinitude of his love and compassion to man, for whom 
it was designed and revealed, and it has its groundwork in the na- 
ture, condition, and moral wants of our humanity. In a word, it 
is the redemption and eternal salvation of man by Jesus Christ our 
Lord. This being the case, it is evident, to every reflecting mind, 
that there can be but one true religion, and that Jesus Christ is the 
author and finisher of that religion. Of that religion he is the 
Alpha and Omega, and all religious truth must have reference to 
him, and to his mediatorial work. 

Hence, the first promise made to man after his fall, when he first 
stood in need of religion, was the promise of redemption through 
Christ incarnate: " The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's 
head." Upon Christ, as presented in this promise, and whatever of 
religious instruction accompanied it, the faith of men in the primi- 
tive ages of the world rested, and around it were gathered all their 
affections and hopes. Every subsequent revelation of heavenly 
truth was for the purpose of amplifying, illustrating, and enforcing 
this first great germinal truth. By rite and ceremony, type and 
symbol, precept and commandment, always adapted to the mental, 
moral, and social condition of those who were made the custodians 
and teachers of the living oracles, did God continue to declare his 
will and purposes, until, in the fullness of time, his Son became the 
expounder of his own religion, and, by his life, death, and resurrec- 
tion, perfected that which had been in process of development for 



The Bible is the book of God. It contains the history of the 
true religion, and of the atonement made by Jesus Christ, and the 
redemption of the human family from the dominion and power of 
sin, death, and the grave. It likewise inculcates and enforces, in a 
variety of ways, all the doctrines and truths of religion. It pre- 
sents one continuous and harmonious system of faith and doctrine. 
The Apostle says, "There is one faith," or doctrine, and this is ob- 
vious from the following facts : Man in all ages, in the essential 
characteristics of his being, is the same. His nature, moral wants, 
and necessities, are now what they have been in all the former 
ages of the world. He has not changed in any particular through 
all the centuries of the past. It is the glory of our holy religion 
that it is divinely adapted to the condition and wants of our fallen 
and ruined humanity. It is just what we need. Nothing could 
be a substitute for it, or fill its place. It is the wisdom of God 
and the power of God. If former ages were oppressed by the same 
wants which we feel, they most certainly needed the same religion 
that we have, and most assuredly God gave it to them. I under- 
take to say that there is not a doctrine of religion or morals taught 
in the New Testament, by Jesus Christ or any of his apostles, that 



22 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

can not be found in the Old Testament. It may not be taught as 
clearly and plainly, but it is taught there. The beiug and attri- 
butes of God, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the atonement by 
an incarnate Christ, moral agency, justification by faith, repentance, 
the witness of the Spirit, the resurrection, future punishment, future 
happiness, and the coming judgment, are all taught in the Old 
Testament. Every thing necessary to make a man "wise unto sal- 
vation" is found there. Paul, in writing to Timothy, says, " From a 
child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make 
thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." 

We affirm, therefore, that there is but one true religion in the 
world ; that God is the author and giver of that religion ; and, that 
that religion was given to man, not on Pentecost, not w T hen Christ 
became incarnate, but long prior to that time. 

What is that true religion ? It is the redemption of the human 
race by an atonement made by an incarnate Christ. Through 
this scheme all must be saved who are saved ; all who have expe- 
rienced the favor of God, have experienced it in this way. It is 
the nature and tendency of this religion to bring those who have 
experienced its power together in social and fraternal relations, 
and in this way the Church originated, and in this way it continues 
to exist. The Church is the natural product of religion. There 
can be no Church of God without religion. There may be an or- 
ganization with officers, and with a polity, but it is no more a 
Church of God than any other merely human organization. Call 
that organization a "kingdom," a "Church," or call it by what- 
ever name you choose — if it is based upon the religion which 
God has given, and which is revealed in the Bible, the infallible 
Word of God, it is the Church of God. 

And now I ask this intelligent congregation whether God had 
a spiritual kingdom, and a Church in the world, before the coming 
of the Lord Jesus Christ? Was there any true religion in the world 
before that time? Was there any genuine piety? Were men and 
women saved, and if saved, how were they saved? The New Testa- 
ment Scriptures clearly tell us the fact that when Jesus Christ came 
into this world, that there existed a kingdom, and it is called the 
"kingdom of God ;" and in this kingdom ail the principles and doc- 
trines which constitute our holy religion were taught, and had been 
taught, in a variety of ways, for ages. Was it the kingdom of 
God? If Jesus Christ set up another kingdom that differed in 
any regard from this, did he not verify the doctrine which he 
himself taught — "a kingdom divided against itself can not stand"? 
Whenever my friend affirms the proposition that the Church of 
Jesus Christ, or the kingdom of God as spoken of in the New 
Testament Scriptures, had no existence prior to the day of Pente- 
cost — that it was then set up, instituted, or organized — he arrays 
Jesus Christ against God the Father, and there is division in God's 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 23 

moral government. There is a conflict, I say, and you have Jesus 
Christ subverting and overthrowing the kingdom of God, and es- 
tablishing upon its ruins his own kingdom. What did Christ say 
to the Pharisees and Sadducees on one occasion, when they accused 
him of casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils ? He 
told them if that was the case, the kingdom of Satan could not 
endure long, because, if he was an emissary of Satan, he w r as like- 
wise an adversary if he was working against him, and his king- 
dom, if divided against itself, would meet with a speedy overthrow. 
In exactly this position my worthy friend places the Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

If there was a kingdom in existence, it was the kingdom of God, 
and in it was taught the religion of God, the religion by which 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the patriarchs and prophets were 
saved in heaven. And yet, we are informed that Jesus Christ 
comes to subvert and overthrow the whole thing, and upon its ruins 
to establish his own kingdom. Did Jesus Christ ever complain of 
this kingdom that existed before his coming? Did he ever utter 
a word of disapprobation with reference to this kingdom of God ? 
He complained of the teachers and expounders of the religion of 
God, but did he ever utter a single word of denunciation of any of 
the principles or the truths contained in that religion which is 
familiarly styled Judaism ? 

We infer, therefore, from these facts, that it is unreasonable to 
suppose that Jesus Christ instituted a new kingdom or Church. 
If he had, he would have verified, as we have already remarked, 
one of his own sayings, that "a house divided against itself can 
not stand." He had already what is every-where called a king- 
dom or a Church, and the Scriptures taught that it was to be per- 
petual, and not to be destroyed nor subverted, and a new and dif- 
ferent kingdom established upon its ruins. 

In Matthew xi : 12, we have the following language: "And 
from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven 
suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." 

My friend referred to this passage, and admitted that the king- 
dom of Jesus Christ did exist already in a certain sense, but he 
did not tell us, so that we could understand, exactly what that 
sense was. We agree with him, however, in this regard, that the 
kingdom of Jesus Christ, which is the kingdom of God, did exist, 
and did exist in a certain sense, and that certain sense is the same 
sense in which it now exists. How could those persons referred 
to here take the kingdom of God by violence, if it had no exist- 
ence — if it was not yet established, and if its great fundamental 
principles had not yet been proclaimed ? The allusion to the con- 
dition of the United States before the adoption of the American 
Constitution will not help my opponent out of this difficulty. We 
call upon him for a " Thus saith the Lord " to show that the sense 



24 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

in which this kingdom existed before Christ was not the sense in 
which it exists now. 

Again, in Matthew xxiii : 13, we have the following language: 
" But woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye shut 
up the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in your- 
selves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in ! " 

And on one occasion the Savior said to the crowd gathered 
around him, that the Pharisees occupied the seat of Moses, and 
that they ought consequently to respect and attend to whatever 
they said that was in accordance with the revealed will of God. 
They were to do and observe these things, but he warned them 
against imitating the ungodly practices of the Pharisees. But 
these men who were appointed the custodians of the religion of 
God, the religion of the Bible, by their corruptions, by their tra- 
ditions, and by all that worldliness which Christ very often de- 
nounced, prevented those who desired to enter into this kingdom 
from entering it; and if it had no existence, how could the Phar- 
isees, the Scribes, and the Sadducees prevent their entrance? 

In Matthew viii : 11, it is said: "And I say unto you, That many 
shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abra- 
ham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven ; but the children 
of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness." 

Again, in Luke xiii: 28, 29, occurs this language: "There 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abra- 
ham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom 
of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from 
the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the 
south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God." 

The many referred to here as coming from the east and from the 
west were the Gentiles, and they were to come and to sit down in 
the kingdom of God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were 
to enter the very same kingdom as worshipers of God, and as be- 
lievers in the religion which God Almighty gave to them, and they 
are to be associated with them. The kingdom of God here can 
have but one of two meanings. It either means the kingdom of 
God in this world, or it means the kingdom of ultimate glory. The 
latter part of this passage fixes beyond controversy the sense in 
which we are to take the term here. For, says Christ, " But the 
children of the kingdom shall be cast into outer darkness." There 
is no reference here to the kingdom of ultimate glory. If the Jews 
had ever attained that kingdom, they never would have been thrust 
out. The simple fact that they were to be thrust out, because of 
unbelief, shows that it was a kingdom located in this world, and 
the Gentiles from the east, west, north, and south, were to come 
and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the very same 
kingdom of God out of which they were thrust, because they rejected 
the Messiah, and the Gentiles did not come into this kingdom until 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 25 

after Pentecost. Is it not evident, then, to every reflecting mind, 
that the kingdom in which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, lived and 
died, is the kingdom into which the Gentiles were called, and into 
which they were to come from all quarters of the globe, and in 
which they were to sit down ? 

Again, it is said : " Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God 
shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits thereof." — Matt, xxi : 43. 

Mark the language here used. The kingdom of God is to be 
taken from them because of their unbelief, and to be given to an- 
other nation. What nation ? The Gentile nation. Given to a 
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Can any thing be plainer, 
more unequivocal, emphatic, decisive, or conclusive than this? 
The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, because you have 
rejected Jesus as the Messiah, as God's anointed one ; it shall, for 
this reason, be transferred to a people that shall bring forth fruits 
worthy of it. 

John i: 11, "He came to his own, and his own received him 
not." Jesus came to his own people, his own kingdom, his own 
Church, and his own received him not. Now, if the kingdom which 
he established was a new kingdom, how can it be said he came to 
his own, and his own received him not ? How could he come to 
" his own" before it had any existence? If he came for the express 
purpose of originating, or instituting, or beginning a kingdom and 
a people, how can it be said that he " came to his own, and his own 
received him not?" Nothing was there aftenvard which was not 
there when he came. 

I wish here to call the attention of my brother to one fact, and 
it is this, that the Jews always believed in the doctrine of the atone- 
ment by Christ. The offerings of Abel were symbolical of Christ 
on Calvary. Abraham desired to see his day; and, in the discourse 
upon the day of Pentecost, Peter sets forth the fact of the previous 
belief in Christ, or in the doctrine of the Messiah. He quotes therein 
a passage from David, in which the Psalmist says : 

" Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope ; because thou wilt not 
leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou sutler thine Holy One to see 
corruption." — Acts ii: 26, 27. . 

And he applies it to Jesus, whom the Jews crucified, and demon- 
strates the fact that God had made him both Lord and Christ, and 
that they were expelled from the kingdom of God simply for the 
rejection of Jesus — of Jesus, the son of Mary, the despised Naza- 
rene, as the Christ. 

There was no one, in all that land, who understood the Scriptures, 
who doubted for a moment the doctrine of atonement by Christ. 
But they could not receive the idea that Jesus was the Christ whom 
they expected, when he came in the meek and lowly way in which 
he did. His person and conduct were contrary to all their precon- 
3 



26 BEOOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

ceived ideas of what God's Messiah should be, and they, therefore, 
rejected him. He came to his own, and his own received him not. 
Because they rejected him, he took from them the kingdom, and 
gave it to the Gentiles, a people that brought forth fruits worthy 
thereof. 

We propose to call your attention now to some of the Scriptures 
which my friend offered in proof of his proposition, and as objections 
against this doctrine : 

''And in the days of these kings, shall the God of heaven set up 
a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed ; and the kingdom shall 
not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume 
all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." — Daniel ii : 44. 

There is not a person present who is at all conversant with theol- 
ogy and theological works, who does not know that there is not a 
passage in all the prophecies of Daniel that has been more variously 
interpreted and understood than this. Writers have endeavored to 
fix the day when this was fulfilled, and have widely disagreed. 
There is no agreement in the religious or theological world as to the 
time when this kingdom was actually set up. Even if my friend 
could prove the very hour, and the very day, and the very agents by 
whom this kingdom, here spoken of, was set up, could he show that 
it was set up on the day of Pentecost, it would profit him nothing. 

But has he shown this? Is there a single word or a single line 
contained in the second of Acts, with reference to the setting up of 
a kingdom ? There is not a single word about it. There is nothing 
said about the kingdom Daniel spoke of being set up, or any other 
kingdom. There is no intimation that it was set up on the day of 
Pentecost, and I deny, most absolutely, that any kingdom was then 
and there set up. 

If I should admit that the Messiah's reign began on the day of 
Pentecost, that would not avail him any thing. If necessary, I can 
freely admit that the Messiah's reign never did commence until the 
day of Pentecost, and even then he can not substantiate and sustain 
the positions which he has assumed, that a kingdom was instituted 
at that time. He can not prove that the law of Moses was there 
abolished, and that the Gospel was then first proclaimed, and that a 
kingdom was then and there set up. 

In the seventh chapter and fourteenth verse of Daniel Ave have 
this language, referring to the same kingdom; and Iw ish to call 
your attention to it : 

" I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man 
came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, 
and they brought him near before him. And there was given him 
dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and 
languages should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting domin- 
ion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall 
not be destroyed." 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 27 

Let him prove from this, if he can, that Messiah's reign com- 
menced on the day of Pentecost, when the prophet here teaches that 
God gave him a kingdom that did already exist. ' It was the very 
same kingdom of God out of which the Jews, who rejected Jesus 
Christ, were cast, the kingdom to which it is said that Jesus came, 
and his own received him not. It w T as the kingdom which God the 
Father had given to him, and it existed before he came to it. 

With reference to the kingdom spoken of in both these places in 
Daniel, it is affirmed that it is an " everlasting kingdom," and that 
it should endure forever. This shows, conclusively, that it is the 
kingdom of God the Father, because the reign of Jesus Christ is not 
an everlasting reign. When the purposes of his Gospel have been 
fully accomplished, when the Gospel has been preached unto all kin- 
dreds, and tribes, and peoples, when the tide of sin and human woe, 
which for long centuries has rolled along this world, has been swept 
back by the power, and majesty, and glory of God Almighty's king- 
dom, then Jesus Christ will deliver up that kingdom to God the Fa- 
ther, his mediatorial work having been finished, his reign will cease. 
His kingdom, therefore, measured by his reign, is not an everlasting 
kingdom. (D.) I present him this dilemma, and it is immaterial to 
me which of the horns he takes. If he chooses to affirm that the 
Messiah's reign did not begin until the day of Pentecost, let him do it. 
I affirm that, according to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, the 
kingdom which he there received was not established by him, but 
an inheritance given to him. My brother next called our attention 
to Micah iv: 1, 2, and I have no objection to following him here. It 
reads thus : " But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the 
mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established in the top 
of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills ; and people 
shall flow into it; and many nations shall come and say, Come, and 
let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the 
God of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk 
in his paths, for the law shall go forth from Zion, and the word of 
the Lord from Jerusalem." Here are two passages which he brings 
forth to prove to you that there was a kingdom set up on the day of 
Pentecost, when in this account given by the sacred historian there 
is nothing said about this kingdom being set up ; and how do these 
passages agree ? In the one case, there is a little stone cut out of the 
mountain, and it sweeps on across the plain, gathering strength, and 
power, and dominion as it rolls through the world. In the other, it 
is a kingdom on the very summit of the mountain. Do these pas- 
sages have reference to the same kingdoms ? If so, it devolves upon 
him to explain these discrepancies. If he brings forward proof- 
texts to sustain a position, and they disagree — if there are discrep- 
ancies between them — he must harmonize them, he must reconcile 
the difficulty before I will receive them as testimony bearing on the 
point in dispute. 



28 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

But admitting this refers to the transactions on the day of Pente- 
cost, it does not prove that the kingdom was then and there set up, 
because it says the " house of the Lord shall be established." "Es- 
tablished" does not alwa} r s mean to set up, in the sense of to origi- 
nate, or to begin at the very foundation and build up. A thing that 
already exists can be established, just as much established as a 
thing that is originated at the very time. I will agree with him 
that the kingdom was established upon firm principles, and upon 
the facts connected with the atonement made by Jesus Christ. The 
simple declaration that the house of the Lord was established in the 
mountains, does not go to prove that the kingdom did not exist be- 
fore that time, but was just then originated. 

My opponent calls this kingdom a "Jewish kingdom;" and some- 
times he calls it a "theocracy." The Jewish government w 7 as not a 
kingdom and a theocracy at the same time. The several passages 
to which your attention was called by him, and to which I have re- 
plied, have no reference to the civil polity and national government 
of the Jews. What had Jesus to do with these things? Did they 
not offer him political pow r er and position? Did they not offer to 
make him a judge of their differences, and did he not always reject 
such offers ? He came not to meddle or interfere with the Jewish 
polity. The smoking flax he would not quench, and the bruised 
reed he would not break ; but he came to establish justice in the 
earth, and to call the Gentiles into his Church. 

The kingdom the prophet referred to was not the Jewish nation- 
ality. It was not the civil government and polity of the Jews, but 
it was the kingdom of God, in which was taught the religion of God, 
in which many worshiped, and were saved through the atonement 
of Jesus Christ. 

We have been asked to examine the passage which we find in 
Matthew xvi : 19, where Christ said to Peter, "Upon this rock I 
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against 
it." The gentleman lavs great stress upon the expression "Mill 
build," which, he says, indicates future time. Let us notice, in the 
first place, what that confession, or rock, was, upon which the 
Church was to be built. Christ said to Peter, " Whom do men say 
that I am ?" The response was, " Some say John the Baptist, some 
Elias, and some say thou art one of the prophets," and so on. But 
Christ added, " But whom do ye say that I am ? And Simon Peter 
answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 
There is the confession — there is the rock. It is not simply the con- 
fession of a belief in Christ, because all intelligent and pious Jews 
believed in him — every one of them. But it was the simple confes- 
sion of the fact that Jesus, the despised Kazarene, was the Christ, 
the anointed of the Father. He was the world's Redeemer, God's 
Messiah; and upon this rock — upon the confession of you and of me, 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 29 

and every other man, that the son of Mary, the despised Nazarene, 
is the Christ — the Church is built and perpetuated. 

The term " build " here does not mean to dig down and lay the 
foundation, and erect the superstructure. I consulted Webster's 
Dictionary particularly in regard to this word. I find that, meta- 
phorically, the sense of it is to " establish" and " preserve." I then 
consulted the Greek word, and I found that one of the meanings of 
it, also, is to " establish;" and Webster refers to this very passage as 
an instance in which it is used in that sense. It signifies here, then, 
I will "establish," I will "build up," I will "preserve and perpet- 
uate" the existence of my Church, upon this fundamental doctrine 
that Jesus is the Christ. 

There is nothing arbitrary about giving this term such a sense as 
this. A man goes and takes charge of a Church in any place, and 
by his diligence, his pastoral care, his ministerial labors, he increases 
its membership and makes the Church prosperous. We say of this 
man that he builds up the Church in that place. We do not mean 
by this that he lays the foundations of it. The Church was already 
in existence when he became connected with it. In the same way 
God had given Jesus Christ charge of his kingdom or Church. He 
came and took possession of it, and all those who rejected the Lord 
and Savior were expelled from it, and those who confessed him as 
the Savior of the world — those who confessed Jesus the son of Mary 
as the Christ — were to be established as a Church, and to go on con- 
quering and to conquer, until the pow r ers of darkness and of sin were 
vanquished. 

My friend then called your attention to the expression "last days." 
I call upon him to explain what is here meant by that expression. 
He asked whether it does not mean the last days of the world. If 
the opinion which I once heard him express is to be taken as correct, 
then that is its meaning. He said that the period when this world 
was to be destroyed was close at hand. If that be the case, then the 
existence of the w T orld may be divided into three periods of two 
thousand years each. If these are the last days, then this is the 
last period. As for myself, I do not pretend to say what it does 
mean. He brings forward his evidence, and it is his business to 
explain it, and to show us what these last days were. It can not 
mean the last days of God's kingdom, for that is an everlasting king- 
dom. It may mean the last days of the Jewish nationality; it may 
allude to the closing period of their national existence. But what 
has that to do with the kingdom of God, established upon firm 
doctrines and immutable principles. What conception or idea can 
we have of God, or a divine government which is changing all the 
time? A government which offers to mankind, in one age, one 
system of religion, and, in the next succeeding age, an entirely dif- 
ferent system ; and then, at the close of four thousand years, Christ 
comes into the world and repeals all that had gone before, and 



30 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

establishes a new and different kingdom altogether. I did hope 
that ray brother would give us something in regard to the law 
which he said was abrogated. I want to know what law it was. 
I will wait, however, until he makes his statements and assumes 
his position in regard to this. 

I assume that God never repeals any thing that he does. The 
very fact that he repeals a law carries along with it the idea of 
defect and imperfection. I would like to have him show any thing 
that God has done that is imperfect. He is not a man, that he 
should lie, nor the son of man, that he should repent. The idea 
that the great God of the universe, who saw the end from the 
beginning, who understood thoroughly man's nature, his condition, 
and his moral wants, and his necessities, all the adventitious cir- 
cumstances of his earthly existence, could not offer him a religion 
that would serve through all the period of his existence without 
change, without being subverted and overthrown, and supplanted 
by something better, is preposterous, and contrary to our highest, 
grandest, and most glorious conceptions of God, and comes in con- 
flict with his immutability, and his eternal and unchangeable pur- 
poses. 

I believe that the passages I mentioned are all that he offered in 
proof of his position — at least all that I made a note of — and I 
will proceed to spend the remainder of my time upon my regular 
argument. Your attention is invited to Ephesians ii : 11-20, and I 
will read the whole connection: 

" Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in 
the flesh, who are called Un circumcision by that which is called 
Circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; that at that time ye were 
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and with- 
out God in the world : but now, in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometime 
were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our 
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle 
wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the en- 
mity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for 
to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ; and 
that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, 
having slain the enmity thereby: and came and preached peace to 
you which were afar off, and-to them that were nigh. For through 
him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now, 
therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citi- 
zens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built 
upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner-stone." 

Here the apostle presents the Jews and Gentiles in contrast — Jews 
he represents as belonging to the commonwealth of Israel, as pos- 
sessing the promises and the covenants and as being citizens of the 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 31 

household of the saints ; while the Gentiles are aliens from this 
commonwealth, strangers to the promises and the covenants; and 
now, he says, "You are brought together; the enmity existing be- 
tween you has been removed out of the way, Christ making peace 
between you and all the nations of the earth." All, he says, are 
united in one body, both Jews and Gentiles ; those who were far 
off had been brought into the same organization with those who 
were nigh. 

Allow me to investigate this for a moment. My opponent may 
say that the Jews were likewise out of this kingdom, and that God 
brought both Jews and Gentiles into it. But you will observe 
that the apostles assumed that the Jews were nigh, and the Gen- 
tiles afar off. If it was a new kingdom, how could the Jews be 
any nearer to it than the Gentiles? The Gentiles were just as near, 
because, according to his theory, the kingdom was not set up until 
the day of Pentecost, and the commission then given was as much 
to the Gentiles as to the Jews. Christ said: "Go, teach all na- 
tions ;" or, "Go disciple all nations." How could it be said that 
the Jews were nigh and the Gentiles afar off; that the Jews pos- 
sessed the promises and the covenants, and that they were of the 
household of the saints, while the Gentiles were not entitled to, or 
possessed of, any of these things ? 

The only reasonable analysis that can be offered of it is, that 
the body into which these Gentiles were brought was the old body, 
the kingdom of God, which did exist, and of which Christ said, it 
should be taken from the unrepentant, unbelieving Jews, and given 
to a nation that would bring forth fruits worthy of it. Those who 
believed, and continued in the kingdom of God, were added to the 
disciples in but one sense or particular, and that was in receiving 
Jesus as the Christ. These continued in the kingdom, and the 
Gentiles were brought in and made heirs together with them to the 
inheritance of the saints in light, and were made members of the 
household of God. 

I wish to call your attention to the olive tree, a description of 
which you will find in the eleventh chapter of Romans, and which 
represents the Jews. The natural branches of the tree were broken 
off because of their unbelief; and the Gentiles, who were wild by 
nature, were grafted into their places. Those Jews who remained 
firm and steadfast to God, and to the religion of the Old Testa- 
ment, the religion God had revealed long prior to this time, were 
the domesticated olive preserved in its integrity, and in its identity. 
The lopping off of these branches, because of their unbelief, did 
not destroy the old stock; it remained, and into it the Gentiles 
were grafted. How could that be called the setting up of a new 
kingdom ? How could it be called the old olive tree, or how could 
the Gentiles be grafted into it, any more than the Jews, if both 
were brought into a new kingdom ? When the disabilities of the 



32 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

children of Israel shall be removed, and they restored to the family 
of God, and to the immunities and privileges of God's house, and 
of the religion which Jesus Christ sealed with his blood, they shall 
be engrafted into this olive tree again. They shall then be restored 
to their former position. But if the old kingdom, in which they 
lived, and of which they formed a part, was destroyed ; if their old, 
spiritual temple was swept away from turret to foundation, then how 
will these Jews be restored to that from which they were expelled ? 
The thing is impossible, and all the ingenuity, the tact, and the 
logic of my worthy friend, or any other person, can not restore 
them if this be the case. 

(Time expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS, ON THE FIRST 
PROPOSITION. 

Monday Afternoon. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My friend, Mr. Fitch, complains a little that I have left the 
Bible, and quoted the authorities of his Church. So far as the 
argument is concerned, I am satisfied with the teaching of Divine 
truth on this subject. But it is perfectly legitimate that I should 
appeal to his own authorities as good witnesses on this occasion. In 
the estimation of these gentlemen, we are correct in presuming that 
the reign of Christ commenced upon Pentecost, and that the king- 
dom of Christ was set up on that day. He says he does not believe 
the declarations these gentlemen make. We can not help that. 
They are the standard lights in his party, and I want him to have 
just a little more in that direction. I quote from Ecce Ecclesia, p. 
361. Mr. Clarke says, with reference to Luke xxiv: 48: "Making 
the first overtures of mercy to my murderers." Benson says: 
"That the heralds of divine grace should begin at Jerusalem was 
appointed both graciously and wisely." Doddridge says : " It was 
both graciously and wisely appointed by our Lord, that the Gospel 
should begin to be preached at Jerusalem." Burkitt says: "Yet 
there will he have the doctrine of repentance preached ; nay, first 
preached." 

My friend complained a little this morning that I had somewhat 
the advantage of him, in that I had opportunity to prepare my 
speech. You will have seen that, for the first half hour of his 



mr. brooks's second address. 33 

speech, he had taken ample opportunity to prepare his. He wa3 
reduced to such extremity, in his effort to review the speech I had 
delivered, that he must apologize, by telling you that I had prepared 
my speech, while his was not prepared. 

The gentleman told us, in his speech this morning, that God had 
but one kingdom, from the days of Adam down to the present. 
We wanted to know just when he began this kingdom. He over- 
leaps all that have gone before him. He does not seem to 
think it began with John the Baptist, or with Abraham, but goes 
back to Adam, and says, "There it began." I am glad the gen- 
tleman has taken his position. In almost the same breath, my 
friend conceded that religion was a process of development which 
had continued for ages, and was perfected by Christ. Now, the 
term religion simply means to bind back. If the gentleman 
means — and I can not conceive what else he means — that God was 
four thousand years in developing the great system of religion un- 
der which we live to-day, and that it was not perfected until Christ 
came, that is just what we have contended for. But it did not 
occur to the gentleman, when he was making his confession, that, 
if religion was not perfected until Christ came, his argument was 
all out of place. Could the kingdom be in existence — could Christ 
be reigning monarch of the universe, and yet the religion he came 
to perfect, and the kingdom he came to establish, have been com- 
plete four thousand years preceding him? We are glad the gen- 
tleman made this assertion; it settles the controversy for to- 
day. From the time God promised that the seed of the -woman 
should bruise the serpent's head, he contemplated the ultimate 
revelation of that perfect religion under which we live. He 
pointed forward to that kingdom which was to be developed when 
Christ should come into the world — all of which is just what we 
have taught to-day. 

Again : the gentleman let us know, this morning, that the ages 
which preceded Christ were pressed with the same necessities that 
pressed upon the age in which Christ came into the world ; that 
there was the same need of salvation, and that therefore the same 
religion must have existed in the world before Christ; but this is the 
very proposition the gentleman is called upon to prove. Indeed, 
he went so far as to say there was nothing new under this economy, 
nothing that had not been preached under the economy that had 
preceded it, notwithstanding he said that was imperfect. Does the 
gentleman remember that, when the apostles were at the city of 
Ephesus, they met there some disciples of John the Baptist, who 
had heard John and his disciples preaching the kingdom of Christ, 
and asked them whether they had received the Holy Spirit? Why, 
they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit. Mem- 
bers of that Jewish Church! disciples of John! citizens of that 
kingdom in which, we are told, all things were taught, and had not 



34 BEOOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

so much as heard that there was a Holy Spirit ! Does he imagine 
there was a member of the Primitive Christian Church that had 
not heard this? Besides, when the Savior was talking to Nico- 
demus, he said : " Except a man be born of water, and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Was it not a 
new thing to be born of the Spirit? Will he tell us when, under 
the previous economy, men were born of the Spirit? They came 
by natural birth into the Jewish Church, or the Jewish kingdom ; 
but Christ says: "Except a man be born of water, and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God." Is there nothing 
new in all this ? The Spirit of God, as Dr. Schaff expressed it, 
" Who hitherto wrought only sporadically and transiently, now 
took up his permanent abode in mankind as the Spirit of truth and 
holiness." The prophets had been inspired by that Spirit, but the 
birth of the Spirit had been unknown before this dispensation. 
Had such a thing been in existence, certainly Nicodemus had been 
born of the Spirit, for we know of no man then better than Nico- 
demus ; for, as a faithful citizen of the Jewish kingdom, Jesus him- 
self esteemed him. 

But again: The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrew 
brethren, eighth chapter, to which I will invite your attention for a 
moment, says : " And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, 
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for all shall 
know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful 
to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I 
remember no more." Under the former economy, sins had been 
remembered from year to year. There had been no remission of 
sins under that economy. The Prophet says : " The Lord hath 
laid on him the iniquity of us all " (Isa. liii : 6). In that men died 
without mercy, under testimony of two or three witnesses ; in this 
the Lord says : " Their iniquities I will remember no more." Are 
these not new things? The expiation for and remission of sins 
was nothing new ! ! ! 

The gentleman alluded to the declaration of the Savior, that if 
he cast out demons in the name of Satan, then the kingdom of 
Satan must be divided against itself. He based his argument here 
simply upon the assumption that the kingdom of the Jews and the 
kingdom of God were exactly the same thing. If Christ, therefore, 
came to establish a kingdom, it was to break down God's kingdom. 
If he means by this the Jewish kingdom, he is right. Christ was 
as a servant in that kingdom, and worked in harmony with God. 
Satan had a kingdom, and if Christ had been casting out demons 
in the name of Satan, then that kingdom would have been divided 
against itself. But, on the other hand, Christ comes in the name 
of God, and works these miracles, and establishes the kingdom he 
w r as sent to foa.nd, which kingdom, Daniel said, would break down 
the Jewish and all other kingdoms. 



MR. REOOKS's SECOND ADDRESS. 35 

The gentleman asks again : ''Did Christ ever find fault with the 
Jewish religion?" In addition to the passage in Hebrews viii, I 
will invite your attention to Galatians i: 11—16 : 

"But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached 
by me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither 
was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye 
have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, 
how that beyond measure I persecuted the Church of God, and 
wasted it: and profited in the Jews' religion above many my 
equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the 
traditions of my fathers. But when it pleased God, who separated 
me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal 
his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; im- 
mediately I conferred not with flesh and blood." 

Thus speaks Paul, who lived under that economy ; he who" was 
fully committed to its glory, its service, and majesty; who was 
learned in its law and traditions above most men of his age, and 
who persecuted the Christian Church. He received his knowledge 
of the new covenant, not through men, but by the revelation of 
Jesus Christ. Did Christ not find fault with that religion when he 
effected this wonderful change in Paul ? 

But again. In Hebrews viii, sixth verse, the Apostle says : 

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how 
much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was estab- 
lished upon better promises." 

Did he not find fault with the ministry that preceded it when he 
said this was a better covenant, which was established on better 
promises ? " That which God established, imperfect ! " The gentle- 
man was astonished that we should presume that any thing God 
had established in the world had upon it the stamp of imperfection. 
God may indeed establish in the earth that which he intends to re- 
move. It was but a temporary institution. It was but the shadow ; 
and shall not the shadow give place to the reality? It was but the 
type; and shall not the type be removed,, that the great antitype 
shall succeed it? But this is not all: "For if that first covenant 
had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for the 
second." Nothing faulty that God has done in this world ? Did 
not God establish that covenant? Will our friend tell us God did 
not give the covenant from Sinai? Yet, he says, if that had been 
faultless, there would have been no place for the second. Again : 
" Finding fault with that, he says : Behold the day comes, saith the 
Lord, when I shall make a new covenant with the house of Israel, 
and the house of Jacob ;" and yet he did not find fault with that 
which my friend to-day says is faultless (?). Mr. Fitch does not read 
his Bible. 

The gentleman referred to the passage : " The law and the proph- 
ets were until John. Since that time, the kingdom of heaven is 



36 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

preached." But did not the gentleman see that the very passage 
which he quoted precluded his own theory on the subject ? What 
is the import of the language, "The law and the prophets were 
until John, and, since that, the kingdom of heaven is preached?" 
Is there not a change here? In the light of this passage, the king- 
dom had not been preached till John. The passage is decidedly 
against him, for his conception is that the kingdom was preached 
away back in the days of Adam. He is truly unfortunate in his proof 
texts. " The kingdom of heaven," said John, " is at hand." Until 
that hour, men had their attention directed to the law and the 
prophets; simply to obedience to that law; but now John comes 
preaching that the kingdom of heaven is at hand. As we showed 
you this morning, these passages established the fact that the king- 
dom w r as then only here in preparation. When Moses got out the 
tabernacle, God commanded him to get it out according to the pat- 
tern showed him in the mount. Every single plank, hook, and 
curtain thereof was duly prepared. But the tabernacle was not set 
up until, by the commandment of the living God, every thing belong- 
ing to it was arranged, and then the descending glory of God filled 
it. In such passages as the parable of the sower, Christ presented 
the future elements of his kingdom ; and, only in this sense, was the 
kingdom of God among men. Its principles were told in parables 
and terse expressions, and not until his death did he authorize the 
apostles to set up that kingdom. Then the Spirit of the living God 
descending, filled that house which they set up on Pentecost. 

But again (Matthew viii: 11, 12): "And I say unto you, That 
many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But 
the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness; 
there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Now, then, the 
gentleman's logic is that the Jewish kingdom, and the kingdom of 
Christ, is but one kingdom, and that there has been but one from 
the days of Adam. The children, then, who are to be cast out, are 
the children of that one kingdom. Many are to come from the 
east and west, and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
in the kingdom of heaven [that of ultimate glory, for they can sit 
with Abraham in none other] ; but the children of the kingdom of 
Christ are to be cast out into outer darkness, and there shall be 
weeping and gnashing of teeth. If the children of Christ's king- 
dom are to be cast out, what is to become of the kingdom? Take 
the children away, and the kingdom is gone. Now, then, he would 
have us believe that when these come to sit down with Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, they [the children of 
the kingdom] are to be cast out into outer darkness. According to 
his logic, the children of the world, and of the Gentiles, are to 
come and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, but the 
redeemed saints are to be cast out into outer darkness. The gen- 



me. brooks's second address. 37 

tleraan even drags down the redeemed children of the kingdom, in 
order to make out his question of church identity. The truth in 
the passage is simply this : From the context we learn that there 
are many of the Gentile races who have never been citizens of the 
Jewish state; that these shall go and sit down in the kingdom of 
God with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the children of the 
Jewish kingdom, who have rejected Christ, shall be cast out into 
outer darkness. When the Lord sent and established his kingdom 
first among the Jews, and they rejected it, then he cast them out 
into outer darkness. 

But, once more ; Matthew xxi : 43 — the Parable of the Vineyard : 

"Therefore I say unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken 
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 

Now, the parable is simply this : 

" There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and 
hedged it round about, and digged a wine-press in it, and built a 
tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country : 
and when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants 
to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And 
the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, 
and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the 
first: and they did unto them likewise. But, last of all, he sent 
unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when 
the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is 
the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 
And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew 
him. When the lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will 
he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will misera- 
bly destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard to other 
husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons." 
• My friend's is a fatal presentation of the teachings of the Savior. 
If there be but one kingdom, and, as he contends, the Jews consti- 
tuted it, then, when he destroys the Jews, he destroys the kingdom, 
and gives it to others. Certainly not. But what is the import of 
the passage? It was the purpose of God that the children of Israel 
should first have the kingdom presented to them ; hence, said the 
Savior: "Thus it behooves Christ to suffer, and that repentance and 
remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, 
beginning at Jerusalem." 

Now, God sent his Son to this Jewish people to establish his king- 
dom among them, and then, when they rejected that kingdom, lie 
gave the kingdom to the Gentiles, and destroyed the Jews as a nation 
for rejecting Jesus. 

My friend tried to make the impression that the Jewish Church 
did not constitute the Jewish kingdom. Well, grant for the mo- 
ment that principle, and what becomes of Church and kingdom? 
Take away and destroy the Jewish Church, and what becomes of 



BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



the Jewish kingdom? When Christ destroyed that Church, he de 
stroyed that kingdom, and gave the kingdom he set up to the 
Gentiles. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY, ON FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, and Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I do not know whether to pronounce the speech to which we 
have just listened a very good one or not. A thing is good, or it is 
not good, just as it answers, or fails to answer, the end had in view. 
I have not been able to perceive what my friend had in view in the 
speech which he has just been making. He has undertaken to 
prove three thiugs. First, that Messiah's reign began at Pentecost ; 
secondly, that the law of Moses was then abolished ; and, thirdly, 
that the Gospel, in its elements, and with its conditions of salvation, 
was then first proclaimed. I could not tell whether he was trying 
to prove that Messiah's reign commenced at that time, or that the 
law of Moses was abolished, or that the Gospel, in its elements, and 
with its conditions of salvation, was then first preached. It seemed 
to me, however, that he failed in whatever he attempted. 

I will first notice a few arguments that he made this morning, 
which I did not examine in my first speech. He affirmed that the 1 
reign of the Messiah began on Pentecost, but did he offer any proof 
of this statement ? Did I not show that God had a kingdom on the 
earth, a spiritual kingdom, and that he gave it to Christ, and that 
Christ acknowledged its authority, and its -claims, and that the in- 
spired writer said, with reference to this kingdom of Christ, that He 
came to his own, and His own received him not? And did he not 
admit, in his speech, that Christ was the anointed king, at the time 
of his personal ministry, — that is, in the days before his crucifixion 
and resurrection? He must have been then, according to the argu- 
ment of my friend, an anointed king without any kingdom, I 
would like to have him reconcile this position with the facts I have 
presented, if he can do it. 

He read to you a passage of Scripture, which is something like 
this : " There be some standing here which shall not taste death 
until they see the kingdom of God coming in power." Mark that 
word "power" There is nothing there to indicate that the kingdom 



MR. fitch's second* reply. 39 

had not an existence already. All that the speaker meant to teach 
was, that a manifestation of power, exceeding any thing that had 
been witnessed, was shortly to be displayed, and that some of those 
then present would see the kingdom of God coming in glory and in 
power, as it did come on the day of Pentecost. There is nothing 
there to indicate that that kingdom was just then to be set up. 

My good brother also read to you another passage, which speaks 
somewhat in this wise: "That repentance and remission of sins 
were to be preached in the name of Jesus, beginning at Jerusalem. 
Does that indicate that repentance, and remission of sins, had never 
been preached before ? Is not repentance included when the Psalm- 
ist speaks of a contrite heart, and a broken spirit? Is not remis- 
sion of sins included when he says : " Create within me a clean 
heart, and renew a right spirit within me?" "Blessed is that man 
to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity." Observe the language. 
He does not intimate that repentance, and remission of sins, were 
then to be preached for the first time. But the. preaching of re- 
pentance, and remission of sins, in the name of Jesus, was to be 
commenced at Jerusalem. Peter, on Pentecost, proved, to the satis- 
faction of three thousand persons, that Jesus was the Christ, and 
did begin to preach repentance, and remission of sins, in his name, 
at Jerusalem. That is all there is of it. He did then first com- 
mence preaching repentance, and remission of sins, in the name of 
Jesus — they had been preached all along in the name of Christ. 

There is another passage which I desire to introduce in this connec- 
tion, and to which I wish to call your candid attention. Christ speaks 
of building his Church upon a certain rock, and says the gates of 
hell shall not prevail against it. My worthy friend contended that, 
because he uses the language here quoted, that the thing was yet 
future. But I would inquire, if the foundation was yet unlaid, if 
it was yet to be planted, and the church yet to be erected upon that 
foundation, how he will reconcile this passage with the one that 
declares that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles, 
and the prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner-stone? If 
the foundation was not laid until after the utterance of that lan- 
guage, how can he, by any possibility, get into that temple, or into 
that church, or into that kingdom, as foundation-stones, the apostles 
and prophets of God ? It will not do to say that it was their doc- 
trine, and that they were not participators in the privileges and 
immunities of God's Church and kingdom. It would be a singular 
idea for prophets to be preaching a doctrine they knew nothing 
about from their own experience. 

But our idea is, that the foundation was laid immediately after 
the first pair were expelled from Paradise, when God said to Adam : 
" The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." Abel 
saw that foundation most firmly laid when, by faith in Christ, the 
antitype, he offered a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain. The 



40 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

only reason why it was more excellent was, that it recognized Christ 
as the Redeemer, as the Messiah, by whom the atonement was made. 
Taking this view of it, we can understand what the Apostle means 
when he says : " There is one Lord, one faith, or one system." A 
system that stretches back through all the past, that gathers up all 
the patriarchs, and prophets, and worthies of antiquity, and unites 
them together in one band, with those who are far from them down 
the stream of time, must be "one." 

With reference to the speech which my brother has just delivered, 
I would say that I have no objection to his quoting human author- 
ities. But, when he quotes them, he gives us simply the opinions 
of fallible men. If he is not aware of the fact, I will now take the 
opportunity to tell him, that there is not an intelligent Methodist 
preacher within the limits of these United States who indorses every 
thing that John Wesley, and the others to whom he alluded, have 
written — not one. I doubt whether there is a Presbyterian who 
indorses every thing that Albert Barnes has written. Even if 
these authorities do agree with him, what does this contribute to 
the proof of the proposition which we are now discussing ? Does 
Albert Barnes's opinions, or Dr. Clark's comment upon a passage 
of Scripture, prove that Messiah's reign began on the day of Pente- 
cost, or that the law of Moses was then abolished; and that the 
Gospel, in its elements, and with its conditions of salvation, was 
then first preached? 

The gentleman called upon me to prove the unity of that religion 
of which I have spoken. I am not here to-day to prove any thing — 
I am merely a respondent. It will devolve on me to prove certain 
things to-morrow. He undertakes to prove the proposition now un- 
der discussion ; I simply take up his arguments, as he presents them, 
and show their insufficiency. I do not intend to allow myself to 
be drawn into an affirmative argument. I will keep my place upon 
the negative. If he questions my assertions, I shall not stop to 
prove them, nor shall I expect him to prove every assertion which 
he makes, for it would take from now until the close of the debate, 
if he should undertake it. 

Suppose there were certain persons who had never heard of the 
Holy Ghost. Is the religion of God, the religion of the Bible, blam- 
able for the ignorance of those persons? What if they did never hear 
of the Holy Ghost? It does not, therefore, follow, that no such 
doctrine was believed, and taught, at that time. Had it not been 
said, a long time before this: "My Spirit shall not always strive 
with man?" Did not David say: "Uphold me with thy free 
Spirit?" You would be perfectly astonished if I should quote 
every passage in the Old Testament that refers to the Holy 
Ghost. Therefore, it proves nothing to say that these people had 
never heard of it. It is not to be supposed that a strange doc- 
trine was initiated at that time, it devolves upon my opponent 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 41 

to prove that such was the fact. But there is no proof in the mere 
statement embodied in the passage. 

It was affirmed, that there was no remission of sins under the 
former kingdom, or rule. What an aggregation ,of transgression, 
and iniquity, of sins unpardoned, and unremitted, was rolled down 
upon Jesus Christ to be pardoned at his crucifixion ! Well, I sup- 
pose, then, that our sins, and the sins of all succeeding ages, were 
rolled back on Jesus Christ, in order that they might be remitted. 
Did you ever hear of such an absurdity! Sins could not be re- 
mitted before the coming of Christ. I would like to inquire of my 
brother, how much less difficult it is for us to believe that Jesus is 
the Christ, than for the patriarchs and prophets to believe in the 
doctrine of the spiritual atonement? It was easier for them to be- 
lieve and trust in Christ than it is for us to do so, for the simple 
reason that they had merely to believe the promise of God. ' We 
have to take that promise for reality. We have to gather up histori- 
cal facts, and collate them, to prove that Jesus, the Son of Mary, 
was the Christ. It was much easier then for them to believe in 
Him, and trust in Him, as the world's Redeemer, than it is for us, 
because we have to hunt up data, and prove that he was the Son of 
God, before we can fix our trust upon him. We believe all that 
they believed, and one additional fact. 

Christ came to establish a kingdom, and not to institute it. He 
came to develop the plans and purposes of God, and bring them 
to maturity. What my brother said about this, amounted simply 
to nothing. This kingdom was perfect, as far as it went, but it was 
not full, or perfectly developed. The little stalk of corn, that is 
just pushing itself up from the clods that lie around it, and press 
upon it, is just as perfect as it is when it is mature ; but it is not com- 
pletely developed. So the kingdom of God was just as perfect, 
when it was instituted by God, as it ever was, but it was not com- 
pleted ; and the term perfection is used in the sense of completion. 
The work was fully completed, so far as God the Father, and»his 
purposes, were concerned, and Jesus Christ came into the world as 
the finisher of the work. I will call your attention to Hebrews 
viii : 17, where that which the Apostle pronounced faulty is spoken of. 
I wish to show you that Paul, nor Christ, never found fault with the 
religion, or doctrines, of the Old Testament. That which is pro- 
nounced faulty is the ritual — the sensuous garment which religion 
had assumed in order to adapt itself to the understanding and com- 
prehension of the Jewish mind in its uneducated and undisciplined 
state. So ignorant were they in those times, that it was necessary 
to institute some system of this character, which appealed directly 
to their corporeal senses, in order to originate in their minds proper 
ideas of the being and perfections of God, and of their own moral 
pollution, and need of salvation. By these ceremonies, rites, and 
types, all adumbrative in their character, they were brought up 
4 



42 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

gradually to a knowledge of those truths by which they were to be 
saved. Hence, St. Paul says the law was our schoolmaster, to 
bring us to Christ. But when the Church of God becomes suffi- 
ciently educated to understand the nature of religion without this 
ritual, it is no longer employed — just as a child in the study of 
mathematics, when it is able to solve a problem without it, lays 
aside the blackboard, which it found so necessary in the beginning. 
In this way, the Church laid aside these rites and ceremonies — this 
cumbersome ritual — which, of itself, was not able to save any one, 
and which only pointed those who observed these things to Christ, 
who was the end of this ritualistic law, and the end unto salvation. 

Here is just where my good brother, and all his Church, labor 
under difficulty. They confound the Mosaic ritual with the Abra- 
hamic covenant, which contains the germinal truths of our holy re- 
ligion. Does not St. Paul say, in Galatians, that the law to which 
he referred was the ritual law, which was added to the covenant 
four hundred and thirty years after the covenant was given? " And 
this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God, m 
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can 
not disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." 
It explains, illustrates, and enforces the covenant which had been 
before given, and which they were, without this, utterly incapable 
of understanding. It was not perfect in this respect, that it was 
not so well calculated to instruct in righteousness and truth as the 
Gospel, when fully developed by the Lord Jesus Christ. So far 
as it went it was perfect, but it was not complete. It was adapted 
to the mental and moral condition of those to whom it was given, 
and was added, because of transgression, for the purpose of bring- 
ing them to Christ, who was contained in the covenant made with 
Abraham, when he said: "In thee, and in thy seed, shall all the 
nations of the earth be blessed." 

I have simply followed my brother here for the purpose of answer- 
ing his arguments, although the question involved is outside of the 
main issue, and not relevant to the question in hand. The question 
to be proven is, that Messiah's reign began on Pentecost ; the law of 
Moses was then abolished, and the Gospel first preached. Your at- 
tention was called by the affirmant to the passage which speaks of the 
children of the kingdom as being cast out into outer darkness, and 
I was represented as having explained this to mean the kingdom of 
ultimate glory, and as having said that the children of the kingdom 
were cast out of heaven. I am satisfied I made no such assertion. I 
simply said, that the kingdom of God, in this place, did not mean the 
kingdom of ultimate glory, but the kingdom of God, or the Church, 
in this world. Because the Church had been with Israel, with the 
Jews, they were called the children of the kingdom, while the Gen- 
tiles were not the children of the kingdom. But because the Jews 
rejected the Messiah as the Christ, thev were thrust out of the king- 



MR. FITCH'S BECOND REPLY. 43 

dom, and were no longer the children of the kingdom, and the Gen- 
tiles were brought into it to take their places. This had allusion 
simply to the Church upon the earth. 

My friend next invited you to examine the Parable of the Vine- 
yard. He represented Christ, the last one who came, as having de- 
stroyed the vineyard. There is nothing to this effect contained in 
the passage. It says : " I will miserably destroy those wicked men." 
He alluded here to the Jews. When Titus took Jerusalem, this 
threat was fulfilled: "And I will let the vineyard out to other hus- 
bandmen." The " other husbandmen" alluded to here, are the Gen- 
tiles, who were to render him the fruits in their season. He came 
and cast out the husbandmen, and destroyed them, because they 
had abused those whom God had sent unto them to gather the fruits 
of the vineyard, and because, last of all, when he sent his son, they 
said: "Come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." 

I have now gone through, with one exception, all the points my 
brother noticed in his speech. In this connection he said, that when 
God destroyed that kingdom, he had to set up another in its place. 
How then could it be perpetually preserved ? Do not the Scriptures 
teach that a remnant of Israel was saved? It makes no difference 
how small this remnant was. Just as long as did the old olive-tree 
was striking its roots deep down into the soil, life remained, and 
there was enough to perpetuate, and to preserve, and to continue 
the Church. If no more had remained than the twelve apostles, 
and the disciples mentioned with them, on the day of Pentecost, there 
would have been enough to have preserved the Church. Three 
thousand souls were then added to them, that is, unto the one hun- 
dred and twenty. These were all Jews, the lineal descendants of 
Abraham, and they all belonged to the Church of God. When 
these men were pricked to the heart, they cried out to the Apostles, 
" Men and brethren, what shall we do?" They recognized them as 
brethren belonging to the same Church. They had received the 
same initiatory rite — they were children of the kingdom. 

In what particular were they added unto them? In that they 
confessed Jesus as the Messiah. They confessed that by being bap- 
tized in the name of Jesus. If we had nothing more than this, 
here is enough to preserve the Church intact and entire. 

I shall be obliged to advance a little, or I shall not be able to cover 
all the ground which I have marked out for myself in arguing this 
question. The proposition affirms, that the law of Moses was abol- 
ished on the day of Pentecost. If my opponent had argued, that 
it was the ritual "law, we might have avoided all controversy. When 
he says the " law of Moses," we are bound to take the entire law. 
There are no limitations, no qualifications; my opponent affirms, 
emphatically, that the " law of Moses was abolished:' What was 
the law of Moses? A great many persons seem to believe that it 
was a law announced by Moses himself, without any Divine author- 



44 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

ity. The law of Moses was the law of God. He was simply the 
mouth of God, by whom this law was declared. AVhenever a man 
talks about the law of Moses being abolished, he must simply mean 
that the law of God is to be abolished, or repealed. God has never 
repealed a single law that he ever gave to man. 

Before I bring forward other passages that I have before me, I 
will make a few quotations. Jesus Christ, while in this world, said, 
that he came not " to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." " I say unto 
you," said he, "that heaven and earth may easier pass away, than 
one jot or tittle shall fail from the law." Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, mind, and strength. Has that been 
fulfilled yet? 

Whenever a man says, that one jot or one tittle of the word has 
failed, he comes into direct conflict with Jesus Christ. I will take 
the word of Christ before that of any living mortal man. He 
came not to destroy the law and the kingdom. He came not 
to overthrow, but to establish that which was set up. He did not 
desire to set up a kingdom of his own in opposition to the kingdom 
of God. In this way, the second person of the Trinity would have 
been arrayed against God, the first person. There would then be 
dissension and strife, and rebellion in the government of Almighty 
God — and a kingdom divided against itself can not stand. God's 
kingdom was in the world. Jesus Christ acknowledged it, and said 
it was God's kingdom; and, if he came to erect a new kingdom, 
different from the kingdom of God, destruction and ruin must inev- 
itably ensue. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 45 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE FIRST 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The gentleman professes to be very much surprised indeed, that 
we should affirm that Christ was an anointed king before Pente- 
cost, and yet had no kingdom. I wonder if my friend has forgot- 
ten the fact, that David was anointed king long before he took his 
seat upon the throne ; that the Prophet of God anointed him, and 
years had elapsed before he began to reign. Again : It will be re- 
membered, that God sent Elijah to anoint kings for Syria and Israel, 
long before they began to reign. It is not a matter of astonish- 
ment at all. The gentleman has simply not read his book. 

Again : He is astonished that I should say, that sins were not re- 
mitted under the old economy. Again I refer to that book to which 
he so cordially invited me before dinner. We believe that its utter- 
ances are words of truth. In Hebrews x.: 3, 4, the Apostle says : 

" But, in those sacrifices, there is a remembrance again made of 
sins every year, for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and 
of goats should take away sins." 

Sins, then, were not taken away under that economy, for only 
the blood of bulls and of goats was shed. Their sins were remem- 
bered again every year. 

Again: Hebrew ix: 15: 

"And, for this cause, he is the mediator of the New Testament, 
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions 
that were under the first Testament, they which are called might 
receive the promise of eternal inheritance." 

He died thus to redeem the transgressions that were under the 
first Testament. As we intimated, then, in our former speech, the 
sins under that covenant were remembered from year to year — were 
laid upon him, and he died to redeem those transgressions under 
the first covenant. Nothing but the blood of Christ could cleanse 
from sin. Does the gentleman say that sins were remitted before 
that blood was shed? We reply, that "without the shedding of 
blood there is no remission." 

But, for a moment, we pass on to some affirmative arguments, to 
which we invite attention. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, 
third chapter, nineteenth verse, says : 

"Wherefore, then, serveth the law? It was added because of 
transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was 
made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." 



46 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

The law was, then, added because of transgressions, till the seed 
should come to whom the promise was made. 

"But, before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up 
unto the faith which should afterward be revealed, Wherefore, 
the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that w r e might 
be justified by faith." 

The law was, then, simply the school-master to bring us to Christ. 
Has that law been abolished ? We invite your attention to Gala- 
tiaus, third chapter, twenty-fifth verse : 

" But, after that faith has come, we are no longer under a school- 
master." 

Does my friend insist that the law is still in force, and that we 
are yet under it? Were these Galatians under it? The Apostle 
says not ; my friend says they were. 

And, in perfect harmony with this, he says, Romans vi : 14: 
"For sin shall not have dominion over you; for you are not 
under the law, but under grace." This is simply conclusive ; and 
I marvel that any man can deny the abrogation of the law, in the 
light of these passages. 

Not under the law, and yet the law in force? Not under the 
law, and yet bound by the law ? We invite your attention to Ro- 
mans vii : 1-6 : 

"Know ye not, brethren (for I speak to them that know the 
law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he 
liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the 
law to her husband so long as he liveth ; but, if the husband be 
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So, then, if, 
while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall 
be called an adulteress ; but if her husband be dead, she is free 
from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married 
to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead 
to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to 
another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should 
bring forth fruit unto God. For, when we were in the flesh, the 
motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members 
to bring forth fruit unto death." 

Now, the Apostle simply declares, in this passage, that the woman 
is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives, and when 
the husband is dead, she is free from that law. So with us. As 
loug as the law lived, we were bound by the law ; but since w r e be- 
came dead to the law by the death of Christ, we are no more bound 
by that law. 

In 2 Corinthians iii : 6-13, the Apostle says: "Who also hath 
made us ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of 
the Spirit: for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. But if 
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glo- 
rious, so that the children of* Israel could not steadfastly behold 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 47 

the face of Moses, for the glory of his countenance ; which glory- 
was to be done away : How shall not the ministration of the Spirit 
be rather glorious ? * * * * * For if that which is done 
away with was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glori- 
ous. Seeing, then, that we have such hope, we use great plainness 
of speech." 

Now, then, the Mosaic law was called the law of condemnation. 
It was said, indeed, to be glorious, but not so glorious as the law of 
the Spirit; as that which remaineth ; and, moreover, that this law of 
condemnation is done away with ; for the Apostle says, verse 13 : 
"And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the 
children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that 
w r hich is abolished." 

So this law, the Apostle says, was abolished — that which was 
written and engraven in stones. And yet my friend says that 
law was never abolished ; and that not one jot or tittle of that law 
passed away until fulfilled. True, but when it was fulfilled ; when 
all the types and symbols of that economy had been fulfilled in 
Christ, it was done away with, and not until then. 

But again : We invite your attention to a passage he quoted, 
in your hearing, this morning, 2 Ephesians xvi : 15 : 

"For he is our peace who hath made both one, and hath broken 
down the middle wall of partition between us. [This can be noth- 
ing but the Mosaic law.] Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, 
even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make 
in himself of twain one new man, so making peace." 

What was that middle wall of partition between us ? Can he 
deny that it was the law ? What was it that divided the great mass 
of the human family from the Jewish nation if it was not the Jewish 
law? And yet the Apostle says Christ has broken it down Are 
we, then, under that law ? When that which separated us from the 
Jews is broken down, are we not free ? The gentleman says no, but 
the Apostle says yes. 

"He has abolished the law of commandments contained in ordi- 
nances, and broken down the middle wall of partition." This mid- 
dle wall of partition was that which divided between us, but now 
it is broken down, and out of the way, and we are one in Christ 
Jesus our Lord. 

In Col. ii: 14, 15, he says: 

" Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that w r as against us, 
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to 
his cross; and, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made 
a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it." What is the 
handwriting of ordinances, unless it be the Mosaic law? What else 
can it be? " He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." And 
yet, the gentleman tells us that we are still under the law of Moses. 
He misapprehends. We are under Christ, and under his law — not 



48 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

under Moses. Does he tell us we should love our neighbor? True, 
but not because Moses commanded it, but because Christ commanded 
it. We are bound by it, not because it is in the Mosaic law, but 
because it is in the law of Jesus Christ himself. The gentleman 
admits it all when he says, that, "until Pentecost, repentance and 
the remission of sins was not preached in the name of Jesus." This 
is simply to admit the whole question in debate. Men had repented 
before that time, but not in the name of Jesus the Christ. Now, 
we are bound by the law of Christ, because we are in his kingdom, 
and under his authority and reign. 

But again: In the promise made to Eve in the Garden of Eden, 
the great principle upon which the human family was to be re- 
deemed was enunciated. But did they comprehend the significance 
of that promise? No. It was repeated to Abraham: "In thy 
family shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." But did 
Abraham comprehend the significance of that truth ? Did he know 
the height, and depth, and breadth of that promise? Even the 
Prophet Isaiah said : " The Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity 
of us all; and, as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened 
not his mouth." Thus should he stand in the presence of his mur- 
derers, according to Isaiah. But did the Prophet understand the 
Gospel as it was afterwards developed? 

Jesus Christ, during his ministry, once said to his apostles, 
after he had uttered the Parable of the Sower : " Unto you is 
given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God ; but to them 
that are without, all these things are done in parables, that seeing 
they may not perceive, and hearing they may not understand, lest 
they turn to God, and their sins be forgiven them." Still these 
things are withheld from the people, after the lapse of four thousand 
years. It was not for them to know the mysteries he had proclaimed 
in their presence. Again : He said to his disciples : " See that ye tell 
no man that I am Jesus the Christ." The time had not yet come 
when the Gospel was to be revealed to the world. Jesus, just be- 
fore he ascended into heaven, said: "Go ye into all the world, and 
preach the Gospel to every creature ; " the time has come for its 
proclamation; now, then, "go preach the Gospel to every creature." 
Accordingly, the apostles went forth, and preached to every creature. 
Now, in Paul's Epistle to the Church at Rome (chap, xvi), he says, 
upon this subject : 

"Now, to him that is of power to establish you according to my 
Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation 
of the mystery which Avas kept secret since the world began, but now 
is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to 
the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations 
for the obedience of faith." 

My friend tells me the Gospel was preached in its fullness in the 
Garden of Eden, and yet the Apostle says it was kept secret since 



mr. brooks's third address. 49 

the world began, but is now made manifest according to the 
commandment of the everlasting God ; " and made known to all 
the nations for the obedience of faith." It was kept secret since 
the world began, and is now made known to all nations. In an- 
other place, the Apostle declares: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things that 
God hath prepared for them that love him." But he tells us that 
God has revealed these things to the apostles by his Holy Spirit, 
for the Spirit knoweth all things. Now, then, the Apostles have 
received that Spirit, and that Spirit has revealed to them these 
things, "Which things also we speak," says the Apostle (1 Cor. ii). 
God kept these things in mystery, even to the prophets themselves ; 
afterward they were revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, 
by his apostles, "to all nations, for the obedience of faith." To 
this end, Peter speaks, 1 Peter i : 10-13 : " Of which salvation the 
prophets have searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that 
should come unto you: searching what, or what manner of time 
the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify, when it testified 
beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should fol- 
low. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but 
unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto 
you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you with the 
Holy Ghost sent down from heaven ; which things the angels desire 
to look into." 

Now, the very prophets who uttered these things did not know 
what they meant. Says the Apostle : " Unto whom it was revealed, 
that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things 
which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the 
Gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; 
which things the angels desire to look into." Now, then, this is the 
Gospel, preached first in type, first in mystery, and when Jesus 
Christ came it was proclaimed in its fullness by his apostles to all 
nations. Hence, its elements were now first preached. They con- 
sisted in the fact that Jesus Christ was the incarnate Son of God ; 
the facts that he died and was buried ; that he was raised from 
the dead, ascended, and was crowned King of kings, and Lord of 
lords. Had man ever preached that God had become incarnate 
until Pentecost? that he had been dead and buried? that he had 
risen, ascended, and been crowned King of kings, and Lord of 
lords ? The trouble is, that the gentleman can not discern between 
promises and prophecies, and their fulfillment. 

Did Daniel mean, when he held up the kingdoms before the king 
of Babylon, that they were present ? So, also, the kingdom of Jesus 
Christ had been preached in symbol, and in type ; but who under- 
stood these? The prophets of God themselves did not understand 
them. Even so, when Jesus said to his own disciples, that his king- 
dom was not of this world, they could not comprehend him. Paul 
5 



50 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

said: "Great is the mystery of godliness." They dreamed it not, 
they knew it not, until the Spirit of God fell upon them on Pente- 
cost. And now, these very men who were blinded, and did not see 
the Christ, and who crucified him, heard the Gospel in its elements 
preached to the world, and bowed themselves to the authority of 
Christ. This was the time when men were first called upon to be- 
lieve in Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. Until that hour, the | 
Gospel of Christ had been withheld ; now it is announced to the | 
world, with the fearful declaration, that, if they did not believe it, 
they would be damned. 

In the name of truth, I ask, is there no difference? Suppose the 
Savior had not come. Suppose the Jewish economy had not wound 
up with the scenes of Pentecost — what would have become of my 
friend and his church, that he says has existed for six thousand 
years on this earth? I tell him, boldly and defiantly, he would 
have been lost, and forever lost ! By the death, resurrection, ascen- 
sion, and coronation of Christ, he and I are to be redeemed. And 
hence, when that Gospel was first preached, men were required to 
repent, in the name of Christ. " In the name/ 7 ' What, sir, does it 
mean ? " In the name''' By the authority of. " In the name of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky" I do this or that. What does this 
mean ? By the authority of that commonwealth. Now, then, go 
preach my Gospel in my name, for I am king. Hence, said he, 
"All authority is given unto me in heaven and in earth/' I am to 
be king of the world, king upon the throne ; but wait until I take 
my seat; then tell them, in my name, that they must believe the 
Gospel and repent of their sins. In my name, tell them they must 
confess me before men. Never, until this hour, had the Lord God 
taught this. But now, the kingdom was set up, the king was on his 
throne, and the ministers plenipotentiary of heaven stood up to 
preach, for the first time, the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its elements, 
and with its conditions of salvation, to a lost and ruined world. True, 
men had repented before, and believed in the promised Messiah ; but 
they had not believed in a personal Messiah. Christ did not sit upon 
the throne of David until he had purged us of our sins with his 
blood. He did not take his seat on the right hand of the Majesty 
on high until the atonement Avas completed. All the Jewish shad- 
ows had passed away; all the symbols of that dispensation had given 
way to the new. All the blood shed on Jewish altars, all the utter- 
ances in reference to Christ, had pointed to this hour. Now, he is 
king eternal, reigning monarch of this universe. But yet the gen- 
tleman tells us we are not differently situated, though he is on the 
throne. The one was a temporal kingdom, and was to pass away, 
and be succeeded by the other. 

{Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 51 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY, ON FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I must say, that I rather like the latter part of my brother's 
speech, for the reason that it made me feel remarkably well. I 
think that he is an excellent revivalist. He really forgot that he 
was debating, and seemed to think he was in a protracted meeting. 

In my brother's speech, he admitted that Christ was anointed a 
king in the days of his incarnation, before his death. A king with- 
out a kingdom is, to me, a very strange thing. He referred to the 
kingdom of David, and stated that David was anointed before he 
assumed the authority of king. There is this difference between 
Christ and David : David was anointed to reign over a kingdom 
already in existence, for Saul was his predecessor, and Christ was 
anointed to reign over a kingdom which, according to the theory 
of my friend, was still a nonentity, a kingdom which he must orig- 
inate and set up. Mark the language here. Christ said to his 
apostles: "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath ap- 
pointed unto me" (Luke xxii : 29). He did not originate the 
kingdom then, and set it up himself, but it was given to him by God. 
He said that the blood of bulls and goats could not remit sins, or 
cleanse from iniquities. Did I affirm that it could ? I know of no 
one who will affirm that it ever did. I never heard any one teach 
such a thing. It did, however, point to the blood of Christ, which 
is called the blood of sprinkling, by which all may be cleansed. 
He affirmed that sins were never remitted under the former economy 
of grace. 

I wish to call your attention to the following passages of Scrip- 
ture, Ps. xxxii : 5 : "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine 
iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions 
unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." Jer. 
xxxiii : 8 : " And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, 
whereby, they have sinned against me ; and I will pardon all their 
iniquities, whereby they have sinned." I leave him to settle the 
matter with David and Jeremiah, both of whom say sins were for- 
given, or remitted. Mr. B. affirms they were not. I propose to 
call your attention to the law, and notice some other points which 
he made. He contends that the law of Moses was abolished, but 
says that such portions as refer to the love of God and our neigh- 
bor, were re-enacted by Jesus Christ. Now, suppose that our leg- 
islature, at its next session, should enact a number of oppressive 
laws, and we should elect other men to succeed them in the work 



52 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of legislation ; and we instructed them to go to Frankfort and re- 
peal those offensive laws, and they should go there, and sit their ap- 
pointed time, receive their stipulated salaries, and return. Suppose, 
then, we should ask them what they had done, and they should 
tell us, that they had repealed every law that they found on the 
statute books? And what did you do then? And they should 
answer : " Well, we re-enacted certain other laws." Well, what are 
they? Then, supposing they should commence reading to us those 
laws, and we find them verbatim et literatim the very same laws as 
those on the books when they went ; what would we think of them ? 

The law of Moses said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy soul, mind, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself;" 
"thou shalt not commit adultery;" "thou shalt not covet," and so 
on. I suppose these laws were all repealed, and then Christ turned 
around and re-enacted, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy soul, mind, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself," and 
all the rest of the ten commandments. What did he repeal the old 
law for, if he were to re-enact the same thing right over again ? 

Then my friend confounded the name of Christ and Jesus. I 
affirm that repentance and the remission of sins had already been 
preached in the name of Christ. The doctrine of the remission of 
sins through Christ had been previously taught. Every time a sin- 
ner brought a sacrifice of a living animal, and presented it to the 
priest, and the priest offered it to God, the doctrine of an atonement 
by blood, and remission of sins was set forth. The priest ceremo- 
nially transferred the sins of him who made the offering, by laying 
his hands upon the head of the animal to be sacrificed, and the 
sinner was pardoned through the merit of Christ. Every time a 
transaction of this kind occurred, the doctrine of remission of sins, 
through the shedding of the blood of Christ, was taught signifi- 
cantly and forcibly. 

My good brother admitted that the germ of the Gospel was con- 
tained in the promise to Adam and Eve, and yet he affirms they 
did not understand it. I would like to know how he discovered 
that fact. I wonder why God gave the promise to them if he did 
not expect them to understand it. Does the gentleman suppose 
that every divine truth of religion, and all the teachings upon this 
subject that were given to mankind in the primitive ages of the 
world, are contained in the few brief pages which Moses wrote? 
Does he suppose that all that was known of God, and of religion, 
and of truth, was the little which we find presented in the Old Testa- 
ment — the few first books of the Bible ? Did not one of the Evange- 
lists affirm, that, if all things done by Christ were written, the world 
would not be able to contain the books ? Was not Noah a teacher of 
righteousness one hundred and twenty years, and yet there is not a 
single truth presented to us as taught by him ? It is absurd and pre- 
posterous, then, to assume that the antediluvians knew nothing about 



ME. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 53 

the religion of God. To suppose that a man who walked with God 
more than a century, and who was exempted from the common lot 
of man, and who ascended to heaven in a chariot of fire, knew 
nothing more of God, and the religion of the Bible, than is con- 
tained in the few brief chapters recorded by Moses, is unreasonable. 
That was an exceedingly strange idea. Any man disposed to re- 
flection, or investigation, or accustomed to watch the development of 
God's moral government, and his dealings with man, could cer- 
tainly never have conceived such an idea. Mr. B. called your at- 
tention to the following language of Peter : "Of which salvation 
the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied 
of the grace that should come unto us : searching what, or what 
manner of time, the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did sig- 
nify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the 
glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not 
unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which 
are now reported by them that have preached the Gospel unto you 
with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven." I was unable to 
see, when I heard his comment upon the passage, how he could ar- 
rive at such conclusions. Did you observe how superficial his ex- 
amination of it was? It seems, from the passage, that the Spirit 
which was then in them did testify of the sufferings of Christ, and 
of the glory that should follow. Yet my brother affirmed that no 
man had ever taught the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ, and 
that he should suffer and die. Yet the prophets actually prophesied 
of this event ; the Spirit of God dwelling within them testified of the 
" sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." Not only 
this, but they inquired with reference to the time when this should 
take place — that is, when these sufferings should occur — when 
Christ should be crucified, and afterward exalted to a seat at the 
right hand of God in heaven. The Spirit in them did testify of 
the sufferings and death of our Savior, and they also testified of 
these things. 

We are not to imagine, from what we read in the Bible, that 
these things were not understood. He says that I affirmed that 
the Gospel had been preached in its fullness. I did not affirm that 
it had been preached in its fullness. It had been preached, though, 
so as to save those who had lived before the coming of Christ. My 
worthy brother said that those who preached the Gospel did not 
understand it. Did Abraham understand it, when he desired to see 
it, or the day of Christ? Christ said he saw it, and was glad. Did 
Moses know nothing of it, when he refused, by faith, to be called 
the son of Pharaoh's daughter, choosing rather to suffer afflictions 
with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a 
season, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than all the 
treasures of Egypt? Were all those patriarchs and prophets, the 
worthies of antiquity, spoken of in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, 



54' BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

who are presented as examples of faith to future ages, who suffered 
and labored for the cause and glory of God, and who were willing 
to be counted as the offscouring of the world, for the name of God 
and his Christ, strangers to the principles and power of the Gospel ? 
It was strange that it should inspire in their hearts such confidence, 
devotion, love, and integrity of purpose, and yet they knew nothing 
about it. 

My brother has spoken, once or twice, of the passage in which 
Christ says to Nicodemus: ''Except a man be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he can not see the kingdom of God." He inquires 
if being "born of the Spirit" was not a new thing. Well, was it 
a new thing ? If so, why did Christ reprove Nicodemus for not 
understanding these things ? When Nicodemus seemed to be aston- 
ished, and inquired how these things could be, Jesus said : " Art 
thou a master in Israel and knowest not these things?" The fact 
was, that Nicodemus had examined the Scriptures as some persons 
do in our day. His examination of the Old Testament had been 
superficial, and, although it taught the operation and influence of 
the Divine Spirit, yet this teacher in Israel, a man who occupied 
the seat of Moses, was ignorant of these things, and Christ reproved 
him for it ! 

"This is he that was in the Church in the wilderness with the 
Angel, which spake to him in the Mount of Sinai, and with our 
fathers ; who received the holy oracles to give unto us." Again 
Paul says : "Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved 
the Church, and gave himself for it." Hence Christ's love for the 
Church is made the model of the husband's love for his wife. 
Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it. But, according 
to the theory of my brother, there was no Church until some time 
after the death of Christ. He must then have loved the Church, 
and died for it, before it had an existence ; and he would make the 
Apostle teach that men are to love their wives, and, if necessary, 
die for them, before they have an existence. If it does not teach 
that, it does not teach any thing ; if my brother's interpretation of 
the passage is to be taken, it teaches that. If the Church was not 
in existence until the day of Pentecost, then Christ loved the Church, 
and died for it, when there was no Church. 

I wish now to call your attention again to the law of Moses, 
which my friend affirms was abolished ; and you will perceive that 
he has not defined his position upon this subject. He speaks of it 
in general terms, sometimes with reference to the moral law, and 
sometimes with reference to the ceremonial or ritual law of the 
Jewish Church. We do not know exactly, at all times, to which 
part he is alluding. But we affirm here, as we did in our former 
speech, that the law of Moses was the law of God, for it was given 
by him. 

This law was complex in its character ; it was divided into three 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 55 

parts: the moral law, embodying the ten commandments; the cere- 
monial, or ritual law, relating to the manner of the worship of 
God; and the civil law, relating to the administration of justice. 
We have nothing to do with the civil law on the present occasion. 
I presume that my opponent means that the ceremonial law was 
abolished. He will certainly, I think, not take the position that 
the moral law, embodied in the ten commandments, was abolished. 
We have already shown the folly and absurdity of such an idea. 
Did not Christ, when a man came to him inquiring what he should 
do to be saved, tell him to keep the commandments? Not only 
did he do this, but he taught that the moral law was in full force, 
and he showed that its full length and breadth and depth had 
never been fully understood before. He taught that it was not 
the external act that constituted the sin, but that the consent of 
the soul, the desire of the heart, was itself a violation of the 
principles of the law. He riveted it upon the hearts and minds of 
those who attended upon his daily ministrations. The law has 
not been fulfilled, and never will be, while there is a man or woman 
upon the face of the earth who does not love God supremely and 
man impartially. But I suppose he has reference to the ritual, or 
ceremonial law,, although he has not told us so. 

If so, then, I deny, that in the sense of being repealed by legal 
enactment, that even the ritual and ceremonial law has been abol- 
ished. When did Jesus Christ, by virtue of the authority vested 
in him as a lawgiver, ever repeal, by legislative enactment, even 
the ritual and ceremonial law? What parts of it did he repeal? 

Before we enter more fully into the investigation of this part of 
the subject, we desire to say a word or two about the sacraments of 
religion and the Church. The same sacraments are in the Church 
now that were in it before the coming of Christ. So far as their 
outward form is concerned, they were changed, but their sacra- 
mental character remains the same. The rite of initiation remains 
the same, notwithstanding it has assumed a new exterior. The 
Lord's Supper is just what the Passover was in its spiritual import, 
the external only having been changed. Baptism is to the Church 
now exactly what circumcision formerly was, the outward applica- 
tion of the rite only having been changed. We have seen, then, 
the moral law was never repealed, and the two sacraments of the 
Church are still in use, and it now remains for us to ascertain 
whether the ritual law was abolished. We deny that Christ repealed 
the ritual law, simply because there was no necessity for it — none 
whatever. If I am appointed the guardian of a child, when the 
child attains its maturity, and receives its inheritance, lam released 
at once from all responsibility and obligation on its behalf. But 
is the act of the court, by which I was made the guardian of that 
child, repealed? Not at all. The Apostle Paul tells us, that dur- 
ing our minority as a Church under the former economy, we were 



56 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

under tutors. When the time of our maturity arrived, we were no 
longer under this system of rites and ceremonies. They were not 
repealed. They just answered their purpose, and we passed on and 
left them, and entered into the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ 
as brought to light by him. These were simply to bring us to 
Christ, and when they have brought us to Christ, and lifted us up, 
and educated and instructed us, so that by faith we can lay hold 
on Jesus Christ, and become reconciled to him, we have no further 
need of them. The law was not repealed nor abrogated. So far 
as its principles are concerned, they remain intact. When my 
brother affirms that the law of Moses was repealed, if he means any 
thing he certainly means the entire law; and if that is repealed, all 
the religion of the Old Testament is repealed, for it was contained 
in principle and in substance in the commandments delivered to 
Moses, and in the Abrahamic covenant which the Church had dur- 
ing that period. How could this possibly be ? Jesus Christ says : 
"Think not I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am 
not come to destroy, but to fulfill." He also says: "It is easier for 
heaven and earth to pass away, than for one jot or tittle of the law 
to fail." 'Yet my friend gets it out of the way without any sort of 
trouble. He has not shown that it is all fulfilled, and he can not 
possibly show it, if he should labor until the end of time. We will 
not dispute the word of God in this matter, and he says that not 
one jot or tittle of the law shall pass away until all be fulfilled. 

When Saint Paul taught justification by faith, he supposed that 
some one would object to this doctrine, and he says : "Do we then 
make void the law ? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law." He 
told them that they had no right to lay aside any of the principles 
or teachings of the law until they were in Christ, and then they 
were dead to the law, because they were wedded to Christ. 

(Time expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 57 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS, ON THE FIRST 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My friend says I have forgotten I was in a debate, but that I 
seem to think myself in a protracted meeting. I do not know of 
any better place to convert my friend. If we could turn this into 
a protracted meeting, that is just what we would like, provided we 
succeed in converting him. 

He made a labored speech of thirty minutes to prove that the 
law of Moses is still in force, and then admitted, in his last words, 
that Christ is the end of that law. I thank him for this admission ; 
and rejoice in the prospect of his conversion. 

Again: I wonder if the gentleman, in his anxiety to be under 
the law, keeps it? — -faithfully keeps itf Does he keep the Sabbath? 
and has he been circumcised ? The gentleman himself does not 
believe it. He is simply mistaken in reference to this matter. The 
law has passed away, and has been succeeded by the law of Christ, 
and that law does not require him to be circumcised, or to keep the 
Sabbath. It requires him to do some things the old law required, 
on the same principle that the new constitution of Kentucky re- 
quires us to do many of the same things required by the old con- 
stitution. We might just as well say the old and the new consti- 
tution are the same, as to affirm this law and that the same. 

I wish to allude to my friend's quotation from Ephesians v : 25 : 
" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, 
and gave himself for it." The gentleman stopped when he had read 
that far. I wonder why he did not read the next verse — "That 
he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the 
word"? I wonder if that old Church was cleansed with the washing 
of water by the word ? This is the Church that Jesus Christ gave 
himself for, and sanctified it by the truth, and washed it with water. 
In other words, this is the Church that was born of water and of 
the Spirit. The gentleman will not claim that this is his Church, 
for his was never washed with water. 

Again : he called our attention to the passage in Acts vii : 37, 38 : 
"This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, 
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your breth- 
ren, like unto me ; him shall ye hear. This is he, that was in the 
church in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him in the 
mount Sin a, and with our fathers : who received the lively oracles 
to give unto us." 



58 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

He quotes this to prove that Christ was in the Church in the 
wilderness. Let us read the context : " This is that Moses which 
said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God 
raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me ; him shall ye 
hear. This is he [Moses] that was in the church in the wilder- 
ness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina." Spake 
to whom? To Moses, and not to Christ, as the gentleman would 
have you believe. Now, then, Moses said in reference to Christ: 
The Lord your God shall raise up a prophet like unto me ; him 
shall ye hear. 

Again: I would like to ask the gentleman a question in regard 
to this season of Pentecost. I wonder to whom were these Jews con- 
verted? and to what were they converted? He labors very hard 
to show us that the old Jewish, kingdom is the same as that of 
Christ, and yet there were, on that day, three thousand persons con- 
verted. If they were under the same gospel, and under the same 
reign, to whom were they converted? They were Jews, and citizens 
of the Jewish kingdom, and now three thousand of them were con- 
verted and added to the Church. It is a grand protracted meeting 
our friend has discovered, but we apprehend that it is against him. 

Again: he affirms that the kingdom of which David took possession 
so long after he was anointed was already in existence. Saul was 
not made king until seven days after he had been anointed ; yet he 
was the first king of Israel, and there was no kingdom before him. 
Thus, a man may be anointed before he is inaugurated, as Christ 
was, and took his seat upon the throne of the universe long after. 

"I will build my church," our friend says should read, will 
establish. It is well known that my friend is opposed to translating 
the Bible ; he says that the version of King James is good enough 
for him ; yet, when he quotes the Bible, from this time on, he will 
translate it every time the version of King James does not suit him. 
The American Foreign Bible Society have published that there are 
twenty-four thousand errors in King James's version — which they 
refuse to correct ; and yet, my friend, when he gets up to discuss a 
proposition, will take the liberty of translating the word of God in 
any way he chooses. I doubt his ability to do it. According to 
my friend, then, when the Savior says, " I will build my Church," 
he means "I will establish my Church." Even if we were to grant 
the position the gentleman assumes, the argument is against him. 
But we positively affirm that King James is right. "Upon this 
rock I will build my Church." Ought not this to settle the question 
forever? What more do you want? Ah, but it does not suit the 
gentleman's theory. Rather than to yield a point, he will go to trans- 
lating, and give old King James's version to suit his own theory. 
When we come to baptize, it will not suit him to translate. 

Christ, we are told, " came to his own, and his own received him 
not." Does he believe it was his own Church to which he came, 



mr. brooks's fourth address. 59 

and which did not receive him? Surely he does not. Suppose 
Christ were to come to the Church of Christ to-day, would not that 
Church receive him ? Surely, the Church of Christ would receive 
him. No, sir, Christ came to his own people, according to the flesh, 
and they received him not. This is all the passage means, or in- 
tends to convey. 

The gentleman wants to know how I knew that Adam did not 
understand the words of the Spirit when it was said "The seed of the 
woman shall bruise the serpent's head." I knew it, as I showed you in 
my last speech, because the apostles did not know these things, and 
because the Spirit says the prophets did not. Paul says this gos- 
pel was a mystery; that eye had not seen, nor ear heard, the 
things it contained; that men did not comprehend it; but that it is 
now made manifest to all nations for the obedience of faith. 

The gentleman says that Peter does not mean to intimate that 
the prophets did not know the meaning of, and understand these 
things, but the time of them only. I will invite his attention to 
the effect of a single word. "Searching what, or what manner of 
time the Spirit of Christ, which was in them, did signify." Search- 
ing what the Spirit did signify "when it testified beforehand of the 
sufferings of Christ and of the glory that should follow." It is an 
easy matter, my friends, to prove any thing, when you select that 
passage that suits your ideas, and fail to read it in its connection. 
This is in perfect harmony with what the Savior said : " It is given 
unto you to know the mystery of the kingdom of God," but of those 
without, it is not my purpose that they should understand them. 

Again : I would like to ask my friend another question. I 
would like to ask, In what way are sins remitted except through 
the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? He will not say 
that they can be in any other way. I defy him to say that they 
can. Then, says the Apostle, "Without the shedding of blood 
there is no remission of sins." If sins are remitted through the 
blood of Christ, and without the shedding of blood there is no re- 
mission of sins, then there was no remission until the blood of Christ 
was shed. 

Mr. Fitch tells us that all the patriarchs knew of God is not re- 
corded in the Bible. I would like to ask my friend for a little 
information. I confess I know nothing about what is not recorded 
there. I know that the man whose book I hold in my hand [Ecce 
Ecclesid] asserts this, but he attempts not the proof of a single 
proposition in his work. These are the things that you have heard 
my friend dilating upon to-day. How does he know that there 
was one other word preached to these patriarchal men ? Mr. Fitch 
is indeed hard pressed this evening. He must leave the word of God, 
and tell you that these patriarchal men had many preachers among 
them. Noah indeed preached righteousness to them a hundred and 
twenty years, but before Noah there were hundreds of preachers, 



60 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

we are told ; and how is my friend to know all this, or even what 
Noah preached, except as it is recorded upon the pages of this 
volume? In his last speech he conceded that the Gospel was not 
preached in its fullness until the day of Pentecost. That is simply 
what we have contended for from the beginning — that the Gospel, 
in its fullness, was not preached until Pentecost. That ends the 
matter so far as this proposition goes. We have proved, by refer- 
ence to Scripture after Scripture, that Christ did not take his 
seat on the throne until he had purged us of our sins ; that the 
Gospel had not been preached in its fullness prior to this ; that it 
began to be preached, with all the facts of the death, burial, resur- 
rection, ascension, and coronation of Christ on Pentecost; that its 
conditions of pardon were then first proclaimed to the world. And 
my friend has failed, in every instance, to affect the argument we 
have produced on this occasion. 

The prophet declared that the law should go forth from Zion, 
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. This, as we have seen, 
was all literally fulfilled at the feast of Pentecost. What was it that 
Daniel had prophesied should come to pass? That the reign of 
Christ should commence in the time of the Roman Caesars ; that his 
kingdom should then be set up. This was represented by the little 
stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and rolling on, till it 
filled the whole earth, and broke in pieces all other kingdoms. The 
truth of this prediction is not in the least affected by the fact that 
Micah represented the same kingdom under the figure of a house 
established in the top of the mountain. As well say the Savior 
does not represent the same kingdom when he presents it under the 
figures of a vineyard, and of the ten virgins. From Zion the law 
went forth. From thence, in accordance with the commission of 
Christ to his apostles, the Gospel, in its elements, was iirst pro- 
claimed. We leave the question with you, as our time ha* pxpired. 

{Time Expired.') 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 61 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY, ON FIRST PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, and Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend Brooks has ventured the assertion that I would not 
answer the question as to whether I had been circumcised. I do 
affirm that I have received exactly the same thing that circumci- 
sion indicated. Did not Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, when 
the question of circumcision was being discussed among them, say, 
that they need not be circumcised according to the old form, for 
they had received circumcision in baptism. He says: "In whom, 
also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, 
in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision 
of Christ. Buried with him in baptism, wherein, also, ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead." That is, in baptism, we receive the same thing 
that was indicated by circumcision. T was asked, by my brother, 
why I did not read all the passage, which says that Christ loved 
the Church, and gave himself for it. Simply because what was 
read covered the idea contained in the proposition we are debating. 
We are not debating the cleansing of the Church by baptism, there- 
fore I did not read the whole passage. "We will read that part of 
the passage, when it becomes pertinent to the question which we arc 
discussing. 

I referred to the passage which says, that this is he that was with 
the Church in the wilderness, to prove that the Church had a pre- 
vious existence, over which Christ received authority, and that 
Moses was a servant in that house, or "in that Church, of which 
Christ was the builder and the master. Christ came to his own, 
and his own received him not." "He came to his own kin," says 
Mr. B. I have learned something. It is the first time in my life 
that ever I heard such an exegesis of this passage as that. He came 
to "his own kindred," and "his own kindred" received him not. I 
will let that go for what it is worth. This intelligent audience will 
know how to appreciate such biblical criticisms as that. 

I was asked by my good brother, whether I thought that sins 
were atoned for without the blood of Christ. Of course not. Does 
not the Apostle say, that Christ is as a lamb slain from the founda- 
tion of the world ? That is as far back as I care to go. I have no 
desire to go back farther than the foundation of the world. Christ 
was as a lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was slain 
figuratively, or typically, in every sacrifice offered by patriarch or 
prophet, back to the beginning of time. I was asked how I knew 



62 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

that there was more religious truth taught formerly than is 
taught in the Bible. Noah preached one hundred and twenty years, 
and the Old Testament does not contain all that he preached. I 
ascertained that fact from the following passage in Jude: "And 
Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, sayings 
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints." Here 
we have two preachers who taught religious truth. We do not know 
how long Noah preached, but I am satisfied that all that was taught 
by him is not written in the Old Testament. 

Your attention was next called, by my brother, to the stone which 
was cut out of the mountain without hands. Do you know, that 
mountain, in the Bible, means "kingdom"? The stone, then, was 
cut out of the "mountain," or "kingdom." That proves exactly 
what I have been contending for — that the Christian Church was 
cut out of the Jewish Church ; that a remnant continued faithful, 
and received Jesus as the Christ; and that is the little stone coming 
out of the mountain, or kingdom of God, that swept across the land, 
gathering strength all the time. The "little stone" came out of 
something that had a previous existence, and signified those who did 
not go astray after the traditions of the elders — the true Israel of 
God, who received Jesus as the Christ. 

Let me call your attention, once more, to the proposition we have 
been discussing. He affirms, in the first place, that the Messiah's 
reign commenced on the day of Pentecost. Has he proved it? 
Have I not shown you that Christ was known to the world before 
this ? Have I not shown you that the kingdom of God was already in 
existence, and that Christ, when he came, received it as his own king- 
dom ? Has he offered you any proof at all to show that the Mes- 
siah's reign began on the day of Pentecost, and that his kingdom 
was then first set up? Is there one single word in the second of Acts, 
where what was done on the day of Pentecost is recorded about the 
setting up of a kingdom. The word "kingdom" is not used at all 
in that connection. 

It has been affirmed, also, that the law of Moses was abolished at 
Pentecost. Has the affirmant proved this? Have I not here, also, 
shown you that Christ says, that not one jot or tittle of it shall fail 
until all be fulfilled ? If Christ spoke the truth, has the law been 
abolished, or has it failed ? Has it yet been fulfilled ? 

It was affirmed, further, that the Gospel, in its elements, and with 
its conditions of salvation, was first preached at Pentecost. What 
does he mean by "elements"? I wish he had told us, so that I 
might have known just exactly how to treat that part of the propo- 
sition. Does he mean the first principles of the Gospel? That is, 
what we usually understand by the elements. By the "elements 
of an education" we usually mean the first principles of an educa- 
tion. Well, what is the Gospel? Has not Paul defined it to be 
the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth ? Does 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 63 

he suppose that it is a small power that God exercises in the salva- 
tion of our humanity? Jesus Christ is the sum and substance of 
this Gospel, and whenever Christ is preached, the Gospel is preached, 
because he is the Alpha and Omega of it. Was Christ first 
preached at Pentecost? Was that the first time in all the history 
of the world, and of the Church, when the doctrine of a Mediator 
between God and man was set forth ? If to preach Christ is to 
preach the Gospel, then the Gospel was preached to Adam ; for it 
was told him, that the seed of the woman should bruise the ser- 
pent's head. Every one admits that the " seed of the woman," 
here spoken of, is Christ. Then, if Christ is the sum and substance 
of the Gospel, and Christ was preached to Adam, the Gospel was 
also preached to Adam. 

The Gospel was also preached to Abraham, for Paul says: "The 
Scriptures, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through 
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham." Christ, doubt- 
less, had this fact in his mind when he said : "Abraham desired to 
see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." The Gospel was unques- 
tionably preached to him then. Was it preached to him in its ele- 
ments, aud with its conditions of pardon, or how was it preached? 
For what purpose was it preached to him ? Was it preached to him 
to save him? If it was preached to him for the purpose of saving 
him, then it must have been preached in its elements, and with its 
conditions of pardon. 

The Gospel was also preached to Moses, for he esteemed the re- 
proach of Christ greater riches than all the treasures of Egypt. 
How could he esteem the reproach of Christ, if he knew nothing of 
Christ? Most certainly Christ was preached to him, or he could 
have known nothing of these facts. The very fact that Christ was 
preached to him, is an evidence of the fact that the Gospel was 
preached to him. But was it preached to him in its elements, and 
with its conditions of salvation? Let us understand ourselves on 
this proposition. I undertake to say that whenever, and under 
whatever circumstances, Christ is presented as a mediator between 
God and man ; when the doctrine of the redemption of our human- 
ity is presented to a man, whether by words, or symbols, or signs, 
the Gospel is preached to him ; and, if he understands it so as to 
comprehend the fact that only through Christ, as mediator, he is to 
be saved, the Gospel, in its elements, and with its conditions of 
salvation, is preached. If the Gospel was not preached before the 
day of Pentecost, how were all the thousands and multiplied thou- 
sands, that enjoyed the favor of (/od before his coming, saved ? 
Were they saved without Christ? Were they saved without the Gos- 
pel? Were they saved without knowing any thing about the con- 
ditions of salvation ? Were they saved without being pardoned ? 
If so, how can they join in the song to be sung by the redeemed in 
heaven, when they say, "Unto him who loved us, and washed us 



64 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

from our sins in his own blood ? " It seems to me that if God saved 
mankind, for four thousand years, without the Gospel, without Jesus 
Christ, and without his sacrifice, then he might have saved them 
always. I must confess that I like the old system better than the 
new system, for the simple reason that it did not require the death* 
and sufferings of any one. If God could save men for four thou- 
sand years without Christ, and without the Gospel, then he could 
save them forever. 

I do not really suppose that my brother assumes this position; 
he takes the ground that all sins committed previous to Pentecost 
were unpardoned ; sinners were kept in some kind of state until 
Christ came, and then he bore the whole mass, the entire aggregate 
amount of these transgressions and iniquities, upon Calvary, At 
least he advanced that idea in one of his speeches, and then he in- 
quires of me how I knew the sins of the former dispensation could 
be remitted without blood. Was it absolutely necessary for this 
blood to be shed before the sins could be remitted ? Here is where 
the gentleman labors under a mistake. The Gospel, in its elements 
and with its conditions of pardon, has been the same in all ages, and 
under all dispensations of Providence. The principles of the atone- 
ment, as made by Jesus Christ, were always the same. But the facts 
of the incarnation of Christ, his death, sufferings, and resurrection, 
with reference to the period that elapsed before that time, were 
prospective, while with reference to the period that has elapsed since, 
they are retrospective. The facts do not alter the case at all. We 
are not talking about the facts of the Gospel, but the elements, 
or the principles of the Gospel. If he had said that the facts 
were not preached until that time, there would have been no 
controversy. But he affirms that the elements, or principles of 
the Gospel, were not preached. We affirm that the elements, or 
principles, had all been preached before the day of Pentecost. The 
life, death, and resurrection of Christ, in fact all the essentials of 
the Christian religion, had all been preached before. Did not Job 
say, " I know that my redeemer liveth ; though after my skin worms 
destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God?" He understood 
the resurrection through Jesus Christ his Redeemer. So of all the 
fundamental principles of our holy religion. Those principles have 
been the same under all the dispensations of God's grace. The me- 
diatorial reign of Jesus Christ, his Son, takes rise from the time 
when he assumed the responsibility involved in redeeming and saving 
mankind, and will continue until the work shall be consummated. It 
was not necessary that Christ should actually become incarnate, and 
suffer and die, before sin could be remitted. God had promised that. 
It was then made an element in the scheme of pardon and salvation, 
and men could then believe and rely upon it, and realize all the 
blessedness resulting from it. Such was the case, and wherever this 
religion is preached, wherever Christ and his Gospel are preached, 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 65 

and men believe and receive them, there the kingdom of God exists; 
but not until they unite and enter into covenant relation with God 
by receiving a sign and seal that marks them his, do they become 
a Church, in the New Testament sense. The spiritual kingdom of 
God was in existence from the time the first believer existed in the 
world, but not until God made a formal covenant with man, annex- 
ing to it an initiatory rite, was there really a visibly organized 
Church. When religion united men, they adopted a policy for 
their mutual upbuilding and instruction, and for the promulgation 
of their religious principles. They were then a complete Church 
organization. To such an organization, Christ came, and the au- 
thorities refused to recognize his claims as the Messiah of God. He 
came to his own, and his own received him not, and, in their official 
capacity, rejected him as God's Messiah, while the commonality heard 
him with joy and gladness. These recognized his claims, and ad- 
mitted that Jesus, the son of Mary, the despised Nazarene, was the 
anointed one of God. They constituted the true Church, preserved 
and perpetuated it. 

Are we not the children of Abraham by faith ? Are we not Christ's ? 
If Christ's, then we are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the 
promise made to Abraham, that in him, and in his seed, all the 
nations of the earth should be blessed. We are then brought into 
relationship with Abraham, as our father, and we are his children, 
by faith in Christ Jesus. Every moral principle and tenet included 
in the moral law, or embodied in the ten commandments, is in force 
to-day. God requires us to love him just as much, and honor 
him, and to honor our parents, and to abstain from covetousness, 
and adultery, and all those crimes spoken of in the Decalogue, as he 
ever did. They are just as binding upon us now as ever. Christ 
did not repeal, and then re-enact them. He simply left them just 
where he found them. 

Whenever the apostles went into a synagogue and preached Jesus, 
they proved, from the Old Testament, that he was the Messiah. 
It is often said of Christ himself that he preached his own Gospel, 
and he certainly preached it with its elements and conditions of 
pardon, if he preached it at all. I can not conceive how a man can 
preach the Gospel without preaching it in its elements and with its 
conditions of salvation. He may not have a full and comprehensive 
understanding of the Gospel. He may not be able to go down to 
its profoundest depths, or to rise to all its heavenly altitudes, to 
take in its length and breadth, and to comprehend all its deep mys- 
teries ; yet if he knows enough to preach Jesus as the Redeemer of 
the world, he can preach the Gospel in its elements, and with its 
conditions of salvation. It was thus preached on the day of Pente- 
cost. It was thus preached to Adam. It was thus preached to 
Abel, and to Abraham, and to Moses. Preached in the wilderness, 
for the apostle says, "Unto them was the Gospel preached as well 
6 



66 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

as unto us." But they profited not by it, because their hearing was 
not mixed with faith. It required the same reception on the part 
of the people then as it requires now. Not only were they to hear 
its truths, but they were to rely upon it, and thus experience the 
salvation it brings. 

I wish to inquire, now, whether my brother has maintained the 
proposition ? whether he has proved, from the word of God, to the 
satisfaction of you all, that the Messiah's reign began on the day of 
Pentecost ? Has he also proved that the law of Moses — the entire 
law — in all its relations, its bearings, its ramifications, was repealed, 
and that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was then and there first preached? 
My good brother wanted to know of me to what they were converted 
at the time the three thousand were added? I thought I explained 
that to him this morning. I told him that the Jews already be- 
longed to the Church of God. It was to the belief in the doctrine 
of Jesus Christ's Messiahship. Peter quotes the passage which 
occurs in the writings of David, when he says : "Thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell, neither will thou suffer thine Holy One to see cor- 
ruption ;" and tells them David had Christ in his eye when he wrote 
this passage, and that it applies to Jesus. They believed in Christ, 
but they did not believe that Jesus was the Christ ; and the only 
fact added to their religion, the only thing they were converted to, 
was that the same despised ISazarene whom they had crucified, and 
whom God had raised from the dead, was actually the Christ. 
My brother knows very well that baptism was a development of 
that idea. When the hearers asked: "Men and brethren, what 
shall we do to be saved?" the reply was: "Kepent and be baptized 
in the name of Jesus, for the remission of sins ; confess that you 
robbed him of his life; that you rejected him; that you resisted his 
authority, and that you have denied that he was the Messiah. In 
order to salvation, you must admit all this just as publicly as you 
denied him, and thus, in admitting, by your baptism, that Jesus 
was the Christ, you obtain the remission of your sins." To that 
fact, then, they were converted, and to nothing else. They believed 
in the existence of a God, and that he was the rewarder of those 
who diligently sought him. They believed in the existence of a 
Church, with sacraments, and with a regular form of worship. 
They believed in Christ, by whom the atonement was to be made. 
The only thing in which they did not believe, in which Peter and 
the rest believed, was that Jesus was the Messiah by whom the 
atonement was to be accomplished. Thus, by yielding to the con- 
viction that Jesus ivas the Christ, produced by the preaching of 
Peter, by the demonstration of the Holy Ghost, by the power which 
there they witnessed, they were converted to the belief of the fact 
that Jesus was the Christ. They received him as their Savior, as 
God's Messiah, as their Kedeemer, and their sins were remitted. 



MB. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 67 

The Gospel was preached to them as it had been preached to others 
before — the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Savior. 

I will here close my remarks, although I had some other argu- 
ments to present. I think that there has nothing been advanced by 
my brother, in relation to the points which I wish to offer, therefore 
I suppose I shall not be allowed to say any thing in regard to them. 
As I have no right to offer new matter, I will submit the question. 



SECOND PROPOSITION. 



INFANT BAPTISM IS AUTHORIZED BY THE WORD OF GOD. 



» 
Tuesday, September 14, 1869. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE SECOND 
. PROPOSITION. 

Tuesday, September 14th. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The proposition to be discussed to-day is: "Infant Baptism is 
authorized by the Word of God" This is one of the most important 
questions to which we can claim your attention. When we remem- 
ber that there are about eighty millions of professed Christians in 
the world, and that about seventy-eight millions believe and practice 
infant baptism, and that out of the twenty millions of Protestant 
Christians, about eighteen millions believe the doctrine of infant 
baptism, we see at once that it is a subject of most vital importance 
and interest to an overwhelming majority of the religious world. 

If infant baptism is not authorized by the Holy Scriptures, it is 
then an innovation, having been introduced by some superstitious 
and fanatical man, and it militates against the interests of God's 
people and of his Church. But we hope to be able to show to you, 
in the most satisfactory manner, that the practice is authorized by 
the Word of God. 

Infants are unquestionably embraced in the Gospel covenant. 
That covenant was given to Abraham. We shall read it, as it was 
frequently repeated to him, and enlarged by God. It is found in 
Genesis: "The Lord said unto Abram, .... I will make 
of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name 
great; and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that 
bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee shall all 
families of the earth be blessed. . . . Lift up now thine eyes, 
and look from the place where thou art northward, and south- 
ward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou 
seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will 
make thy seed as the dust of the earth. . . . Look now toward 
heaven, and tell the stars if thou be able to number them ; and He 
said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed the Lord, 
and he counted it to him for righteousness. . . . And God 
talked with Abram, saying, As for me, behold my covenant is with 
thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy 
name be any more called Abram but Abraham; for a father of 

(71) 



72 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

many nations I have made thee. And I will make thee exceeding 
fruitful, and I "will make nations of thee ; and kings shall come out 
of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, 
and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting cov- 
enant ; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I 
will give unto thee, and thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou 
art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, 
and I will be their God. . . . And thy seed shall possess the 
gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the 
earth be blessed." — Gen. xii: 1-3; xiii: 14-17; xv: 1-7; xvii: 
1-8; xxii: 15-18; xxvi: 3, 4; xxviii: 14, 15. 

This covenant, here made with Abraham, called by the Apostle 
John the "Father of the Faithful," was the first charter under 
which men were formed into a visible Church compact. I know 
that my worthy opponent will tell you that this covenant was of a 
temporal character, especially that part of it to which circumcision 
was appointed as a token and a seal. But we will present a few 
passages of Scripture, found in both the Old and New Testament, 
which go to prove most clearly that the covenant was spiritual as 
well as temporal — that the temporal part of it which applied literally 
to the lineal descendants of Abraham, was made the type of that 
which was spiritual and everlasting. Christ himself was the sub- 
stance of this covenant, and it was confirmed in him. 

"I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thy 
hand, and will keep thee, and will give thee for a covenant of the 
people, for a light of the Gentiles." — Isa. xlii : 5. " Now to Abra- 
ham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to 
seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. 
And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of 
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, can not disannul, that it should make the promise of none 
effect." — Gal. iii: 16, 17. The seed spoken of then in this cove- 
nant, as testified by St. Paul, is Christ. He was the substance of 
the covenant, which was confirmed of God in him. No additions 
of a temporal character, made when the covenant was given, or sub- 
sequently, could disannul or make it of no effect. " Now I say 
that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth 
of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." — Rom. 
xv : 8. Once more: in Col. ii: 11, 12 we read this language: 
"In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made 
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by 
the circumcision of Christ : Buried with him in baptism, wherein 
also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." When God said to 
Abraham " blessing I will bless thee," he did not restrict himself 
to the bestowment of temporal blessings. These were not such a 
reward as a holy character and life deserved. But the Apostle 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 73 

settles this question when he tells us that Christ, by his death, re- 
deemed us from under the law, which only condemned, and could 
not save, for the specific purpose that "the blessing of Abraham 
might come upon us, which blessing was the promise of the Holy 
Spirit through faith in Christ." This covenant God pronounced 
to be an everlasting covenant, and we propose to give a brief his- 
tory of it, as it was repeated to successive generations, and as it is 
recorded in the Old Testament. It was given to Isaac, as the fol- 
lowing quotation from Gen. xvii: 21 will show: "But my covenant 
will I establish with Isaac." Again: Gen. xxvi : 3, 4: "And I 
will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will 
give unto thy seed all these countries ; and in thy seed shall all the 
nations of the earth be blessed." 

It was likewise repeated to Jacob, Gen. xxviii: 13, 14: "And in 
thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." 

It was repeated again to David in the following language : " I 
have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David 
my servant, Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up." It 
was to be an everlasting covenant, from the fact that all the 
nations and families of the earth were blessed in it, and if it was, 
at any time, set aside, or abrogated, and something else substituted 
for it, it could not possibly communicate its blessings to all the 
families of the earth to the latest generations. How could David's 
throne be built upon it to all generations? Because of his exem- 
plary character, and the holiness of his life, the Scriptures present 
him as a type of Christ. God promised him that Christ should 
sit upon his throne, and that he would establish his seed and throne 
forever. In Psalms lxxxix: 34-36, the inspired writer makes use 
of the following language : " My covenant will I not break, nor 
alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by 
my holiness, that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure 
forever, and his throne as the sun before me." Here God, in the 
most emphatic terms, promises, for the comfort and encouragement 
of his people, that the covenant which he had made with the fathers 
should never be broken, and should never be altered. Again we 
read: "For the mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, 
but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the cove- 
nant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on 
thee" — Isa. liv: 10. The great promise of this covenant, which 
had been repeated so often to the patriarchs and prophets, was ful- 
filled in Christ, as is clearly set forth in Luke i: 67-75: "Blessed 
be the Lord God of Israel ; for he has visited and redeemed his peo- 
ple. And hath raised a horn of salvation for us in the house of his 
servant David. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, 
which have been since the world began. That we should be saved 
from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us ; to per- 
form the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy 
7 



74 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

covenant; the oath which he swear to our father Abraham that he 
would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of 
our enemies, might serve him without fear." The ancient covenant 
was renewed by Jesus Christ himself, and when contrasted, in its 
renewed condition, in its spiritual worship, with the Mosaic ritual, 
it is called a new covenant. Prophets pointed to its renewal by 
Christ: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make 
a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of 
Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made with their fa- 
thers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out 
of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I 
was a husband unto them, saith the Lord : but this shall be the 
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel : After those 
days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
write it in their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be 
my people And they shall teach no more every man his neigh- 
bor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord : for they 
shall all know me, from the least of them, unto the greatest of 
them, saith the Lord : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will 
remember their sins no more." — Jer. xxxi : 31-34. "For this is 
my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins." — 
Rom. xi : 27. Jeremiah calls it, in its renewed state, a new cov- 
enant, in contradistinction to the covenant which God gave to the 
Israelites when he took them by the hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt, and of which Paul speaks when he says, "the law 
which was added four hundred and thirty years after can not dis- 
annul and make the promise of no effect." "After those days," 
it reads, " I will put my law in their inward parts." He does not 
say, I will abrogate the old law, or make a new law, but uses this 
language, spiritualizing the whole thing: "And they shall not 
teach every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord ; for they 
shall all know me, from the least of them, unto the greatest of. 
them, saith the Lord: for I will put my, law in their inward parts, 
and write it in their hearts." 

Now, we find that this covenant, which God made with Abra- 
ham, and which was the first charter of our religious privileges 
and liberties that existed in the w T orld, has been preserved, and 
perpetuated, and amplified, and was not changed, or abrogated, at 
the coming of Christ, who was the sum and substance of it. What 
was the object of God in giving such a charter, thus bringing 
men into covenant relationship with him? It was for the express 
purpose, that he might gather together in one all things in Christ, 
which are in heaven, and which are in earth, that all his children 
might be brought together into one family. It may be profitable to 
us, just here, to inquire with reference to the meaning of the word 
"church," as it occurs in the Holy Scriptures. It has but one 
meaning; it always means a "people in covenant with God." This 



MR. fitch's first address. 75 

is the scriptural meaning of the terra "church." A man may be 
a believer, he may be a pardoned man, but he is not a member of 
God's Church, or family, until he enters into covenant relationship 
with him, by receiving the token of that covenant, whatever that 
may be. And, when God appointed a token by which men were 
to be brought into covenant relationship with him, he applied that 
token, and seal, not only to adults, but to infants. When Jesus 
Christ came into this world, to accomplish the work of redemption, 
he found a spiritual kingdom — a visible Church. He found in that 
Church, not only adults, but infants; and they were there by positive 
enactment. God legislated them into the Church, and it devolves 
upon our opponent to show that Jesus Christ legislated them out. 

We are frequently called upon for a "Thus saith the Lord" for 
infant baptism — for a positive command to show that they ought 
to be baptized ; that they ought to be members of God's Church ; 
that they ought to be in covenant relationship with him ; and it is 
claimed, that because the New Testament is silent upon this subject, 
that there is no authority for bringing them now into covenant re- 
lationship with God. We take up the Old Testament, and look at 
the origin of the Church, the origin of the religious covenant, and 
we find them comprised in that covenant, and, by Divine legislation, 
placed in the Church of God ; and we call upon those who oppose 
their being retained there, to show where God repealed the Divine 
law. Silence itself, abstractly considered, is no argument, either pro 
or con, with reference to a proposition. When we take into consid- 
eration the circumstances, they may lend to that silence a positive 
or negative signification. When we take into consideration the 
fact, that in the only true Church that existed in the world, the 
only Church that rightfully claimed Divine authority, we find in- 
fants; and the fact that Jesus Christ, who recognized the kingdom 
of God as existing in the earth in the days of his incarnation, and 
submitted himself to its authority, and conformed to its laws, and 
dts observances, did not change, or repeal, or abrogate any of its 
laws, the silence of the New Testament Scriptures is an argument 
in favor of infant Church membership, and infant baptism. 

What did the Apostle mean, when he used this language : 
" Children, obey your parents in the Lord " ? Does not every intelli- 
gent Bible reader know, that to be in the Lord is to be in covenant 
relationship with him. And again: "Ye fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition 
of the Lord." When we consult this Epistle, and, also, the passage 
in Ephesians, and find that Paul was speaking of Church members 
as those who stood in covenant relations with God and Jesus Christ, 
and compare the language here employed with the language which 
was formerly given to infants in covenant relationship with God, 
when God said : " Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days 
may be prolonged in the earth," we find here evidence of the fact 



76 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

that they were regarded as being in covenant relations with God. 
Did not the Prophet Isaiah, when he saw the dealings of Christ 
with his Church, in the days of the incarnation, recognize the claims 
and rights of infants in the Church of God, when he used this lan- 
guage: "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather 
the lambs with his arms, and carry them in his bosom"? I can not 
understand how the lambs of his flock, which unquestionably means 
children, can be borne in the arms and bosom of Jesus Christ, and 
yet be out of covenant relation with him, out of the Church, out 
upon the commons, as it were, exposed to all the dangers of the en- 
emy. "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather 
the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom." Was not this 
literally fulfilled, when Christ, in the days of his incarnation, called 
a little child unto him, and took him in his arms, and said: "Of 
such is the kingdom of heaven"? "Then were brought unto him 
little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray ; and 
the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, suffer little children, and 
forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of 
heaven." 

My opponent will doubtless call your attention, when he comes 
to examine this passage, to the fact that the disciples forbid their 
being brought. And why did they do that? Were they well in- 
structed in the law of God? Did they understand the question of 
religion, as it was taught in the Old Testament Scriptures? It 1*3 
not probable they did, because they were common people, all 
of them. They were illiterate persons, and, from the evidence, 
upon different occasions, w T e infer that they had improper and in- 
adequate ideas of the nature and design of the ministry of Jesus 
Christ, and that they did not understand the character of his king- 
dom. The idea w T hich they had received was, that he had come to 
restore the temporal power and authority of the Israelitish nation. 
This being their understanding of that kingdom and government, 
for which Jesus Christ was laboring, how natural it Would be for 
them to suppose that infants had no place in it, and that they 
should rebuke those who brought them to Christ. 

But does not the Scripture historian declare, that Jesus Christ 
w r as displeased with their conduct, and said: "Suffer little children 
to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom 
of heaven"? What is meant by the kingdom of heaven here? It 
can mean but one of two things. We find the term variously em- 
ployed in the New Testament Scriptures, sometimes having refer- 
ence to ultimate glory, and sometimes having reference to the visi- 
ble Church, and sometimes having reference to the work of grace 
in the heart. In this place, it either means the visible Church on 
earth, or the kingdom of ultimate glory, in the upper and better 
world. That it does not mean the kingdom of ultimate glory, is 
evident, from the fact that he says: "Suffer little children to come 



MK. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRES8. 77 

unto me, and forbid them not." No man can hinder them from be- 
ing saved in heaven ; no man can allow them the privilege of going 
to heaven ; but those who object to their being brought into rela- 
tionship by covenant, and token, w 7 ith Jesus Christ, do prevent them 
from coming to Christ in this regard. The Savior unquestionably- 
meant, then, his established Church, or kingdom, in this world. 

I wish to call your attention, especially, to the w r ord "such," be- 
cause we have heard objections offered to it, and criticisms upon it. 
We are told, that when Christ said, "Suffer little children," etc., 
he meant merely that those who were innocent in their dispositions, 
like children, constituted the members of the kingdom. Is there 
really any sound sense in such an interpretation of the text as that? 
He might just as appropriately have said : Suffer doves to come 
unto me, and forbid them not ; because those who are innocent as 
doves, or like doves, of them is the kingdom of heaven. Jesus 
Christ said, of such is the kingdom of heaven ; and, if he did not 
mean that they belonged to the kingdom of God, and constituted an 
essential part of it, what did he mean? How could the disciples 
have understood him at all? 

I wish now to call your attention to a few passages, to show you 
that the term "such," used here, includes the things just spoken 
of, and all like them : 

"And the multitude glorified God, who had given such power 
unto men." — Matthew ix : 8. It included the exhibitions of power 
they had just witnessed, and all like it. 

" And with many such parables spake he the word unto them," 
including the parables just spoken of, and all like them. "That 
even such mighty works are wrought by his hands," including the 
works he wrought, and all like them. " But who is this of whom 
I hear such things?" meaning the things which he enumerated, and 
all like them. " For of such is the kingdom of heaven." The 
kingdom of heaven is composed of children, and all like them. 
Now, a statement that a person belongs to the kingdom of heaven, 
must mean one of two things. It must mean that such a one 
belongs to the visible Church as a matter of fact, or that he is a 
subject of grace, and an heir of glory. So that when Jesus Christ 
affirmed that children belonged to the kingdom of God, either he 
meant that they were members of the visible Church in fact, or 
else that they were subjects of grace, and heirs of glory. If he 
meant the first, that is all we contend for. If he meant the second, 
that they were subjects of grace and heirs of glory, then he must 
unquestionably have meant that they have a right to the sign of 
that grace which saves them, and constitutes them heirs of glory. 
The first idea is included in the latter. If a child is a subject of 
grace, then it is an heir of glory, and it can not be saved unless by 
Christ ; and those who are saved by him, are saved by his grace, and 
constituted heirs of glory through him ; and if they are subjects of 



78 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

divine grace, and heirs of eternal glory, then they belong to God's 
kingdom, and are a component part of his Church; and the man 
•who forbids them to enter, or prevents them from entering into that 
Church, by receiving the sign or token of the covenant which God 
has made, is opposing the purposes and plans of Jesus Christ. 

Your attention is next called to the commission — " Go ye, there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all 
tilings whatsoever I have commanded you." There are two different 
terms used in this commission, and translated "teach." Though 
the idea of teaching is included in both of them, yet the first one 
more properly means "to disciple." "Go, disciple all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost." There has been a great deal of talk about 
the proper subjects of baptism ; and men have stated that adults 
are proper subjects of baptism, and infants are not proper sub- 
jects of baptism. We contend that both are proper subjects 
of baptism, because the Bible makes no such distinctions. The 
New Testament says nothing at all about the proper subjects of 
baptism. Jesus Christ commanded his apostles to go disciple all 
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever he had commanded them. According to the rule which 
Alexander Campbell laid down in his debate with Dr. Rice, that 
a present participle following an imperative verb, denotes or de- 
scribes how the thing commanded is to be done, the nations are to 
be discipled by baptizing them. I believe this rule to be correct. 
" Cleanse the house sweeping it." " Cultivate the field plowing it." 
" Disciple the nations baptizing them," are all expressions of the 
same character. But my friends upon the other side of the ques- 
tion interpret the commission to mean that only adult persons are 
to be baptized. There is nothing of this kind said in the commis- 
sion. Those are to be baptized who are to be discipled, and Christ 
says: " Disciple the nations." If infants constitute a part of the 
nations, then they are to be baptized together with adults. 

I take the position this morning, that the nations of the earth 
are the proper subjects of baptism, old and young, large and small. 
No distinctions are made here. Suppose that this command was 
complied with to-day, what would be the result? If the nations of 
the earth were discipled to-day, as Jesus Christ commanded these 
apostles to disciple them, what would be the result? What makes 
one man more a proper subject of baptism than another? Has 
Jesus Christ denominated certain persons as the proper subjects of 
baptism ? Why are not all baptized immediately ? Because some 
men refuse to be baptized, and to submit themselves to the authority 
of Jesus Christ; and if the nations of the earth to-day should want 
to be discipled to Christ, the result would be, that all of them would 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 79 

be proper subjects of baptism, and they would all be baptized. We 
have one instance upon record, where a nation was discipled in a 
day — discipled to a certain man. The Israelites, we learn from Saint 
Paul, were discipled unto Moses, by being baptized when they were 
crossing the Red Sea. There was a nation discipled ; and did God 
separate the adults from the infants, and disciple the adults, and 
leave the infants out of covenant relationship with Moses? That is 
the way God does the work, and Jesus Christ commanded his apos- 
tles to disciple the nations. The reason why they are not baptized — ■ 
the reason why men and women are not baptized — is not because 
they are not proper subjects of baptism, but because they wickedly 
and persistently refuse to submit themselves to the authority of 
Jesus Christ, and to be discipled to him. We contend, then, that the 
commission itself authorized the discipling of infants by baptizing 
them. 

Again, on the day of Pentecost, when Peter preached to the 
people, and they were pricked to the heart ; when he demonstrated 
to them, from the Old Testament Scriptures and by the manifestation 
of God's power which they had witnessed, that Jesus had been made 
both Lord and Christ by God the Father, and they said, " Men 
and brethren, what shall we do to be saved," he commanded them 
to be baptized in the name of Jesus, for the promise is unto you, 
and to your children. My good brother will doubtless tell us that 
" children" there means " descendants" or " progeny." Must that 
progeny wait until they attain the years of accountability before 
they are entitled to the promises of God here specified ? Would 
they not readily comprehend the fact, that if this was designed to be 
perpetual, and endure as long as time should last, that their posterity 
would be included in the promise and in the blessings ? To be sure 
they would. That is the construction they would be likely to put 
upon it. They had had their children in covenant relations to God 
with themselves. They had been initiated into the Church of God, 
and their children had come along with them into the kingdom and 
Church of God ; and since they knew that God had commanded 
Abraham to be circumcised, and his seed also, and Peter declared 
that the promise was unto them and to their children, would not 
you — is it not highly probable that they should? — infer that their 
children were to be made partakers with them of the blessings of 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ? 

Divest your minds of all prejudice, and look at the transaction in 
the light of existing circumstances, and in the face of the history of 
the past, the existence and practices of God's Church. Then let 
your judgment have fair play, and see whether it will not decide 
that they would most naturally put just such a construction upon it? 
Who were to be baptized on this occasion? To whom did the prom- 
ise appertain? To them and to their children, and to as many as 
the Lord should call, even to them that were afar off. He said: 



80 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

"To you, and to your children is the promise made." To what 
promise did he refer? Take your Bible, examine it, and ascer- 
tain, if you can, and see if it is not the promise which God made to 
Abraham, that in Christ all his seed should be blessed. Are not 
children recognized as the seed of Abraham as well as adults? 
Have they not always, in the Old Testament, from the time when 
the covenant was made and the promises were given, been recognized 
as the seed of Abraham — as sharers in the promises, and entitled to 
the privileges and blessings of the covenant? Putting this con- 
struction upon it, which we deem to be perfectly legitimate, we 
proceed to call your attention to the family baptisms recorded in 
the Xew Testament. 

We find, that in every instance where a man received baptism 
who was the head cf a family, that his family was baptized at the 
same time, without any thing being said about their being adults, 
or having attained the years of accountability. They preached to 
Lydia; and the Lord opened her heart, and she understood the word, 
and believed, and she was baptized, and her household. And the 
Philippian jailer, when they preached Jesus Christ to him, believed, 
and he was baptized also, and all his house. Paul says, further- 
more, that he baptized the household of Stephanus. Here, then, 
we have the record of three household baptisms, or family baptisms. 

My worthy friend has a very ingenious criticism upon one of 
these transactions that I have heard of his using frequently, and I 
will call your attention to it. He says that the Philippian jailer had 
but one child, a daughter, and she was the wife of a one-legged shoe- 
maker. When he makes this statement, then, he supposes some one 
in the audience to call upon him for the proof of that fact. Then he 
comes down with this crushing remark : " I have the same evidence 
of that fact that pedobaptists have that there were infants in that 
family.'' I suppose his congregation swallow this down as a sweet 
morsel, and look upon it as sound, logical reasoning. But now, let 
me show you the falseness and sophistry of the whole thing. Sup- 
pose I ask that man as to the health of his family. Have you any 
right to infer that there are infants in his family ? To be sure you 
have, because there are infants in at least nine-tenths of all the 
families in the community. Are we not warranted, then, in the 
inference that that man's family contains infants? but have we 
any right to infer that he has a one-legged shoemaker for a son- 
in-law? Is there one man in twenty millions who has a son-in-law 
with but one leg, and whose occupation is that of making shoes? 
Then the gentleman does not have the same proof of the fact that 
this man's supposed daughter was the wife of a cobbler with one 
leg, that we have that, there were infants in his family. 

Now there is one other fact taught which I want to call your 
attention to in connection with these family baptisms, and it is this : 
It is said that Lydia and her household were baptized, that the 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 81 

jailer and his household were baptized, and that the household of 
Stephanus was baptized, while it is said that the children of Crispus 
believed on the Lord, together with him. It is not affirmed of 
them that they Avere baptized. The simple statement that they 
believed on the Lord, together with him, is indicative of the fact 
that they were sufficiently grown up, and advanced in years, to 
exercise faith. Now the question to be settled is, if the house- 
holds of Lydia, and the jailer, and Stephanus were far enough ad- 
vanced in years to believe on the Lord, together with their parents, 
as the children of Crispus did here, why is it not said of them that 
they believed on the Lord? It says the children of Crispus believed 
on the Lord, together with him, and just simply affirms of the 
families of Lydia, and the jailer, and Stephanus, that they were 
baptized. 

The Acts of the Apostles contains a history of the Church of 
God for thirty years after the resurrection. It is, therefore, the 
only history of the Church we have during that period. It is a 
correct history, because it is inspired. Do you know, sir, how 
many persons are specified, by name, as having received baptism, 
in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles ? We learn that three 
thousand were baptized on the day of Pentecost, and we learn that 
the word grew mightily and prevailed, and the probability is, that 
many thousands were baptized in a very short time. But out of 
all that vast multitude who received baptism at the hands of the 
apostles, only eight persons are specified by name as having received 
that rite. These are Simon Magus, the Eunuch, Saul, Lydia, the 
Philippian jailer, whose name is not mentioned, Crispus, Gains, 
and Stephanus. These are the only persons who are specified as 
having received this rite at the hands of the apostles. 

Let us look into this matter a little further. Simon Magus was 
baptized, but we do not know whether he had a family or not. If 
he did, the fact is not mentioned. The Eunuch was baptized, and 
we know he had no family. Saul w T as baptized, and we also know 
that he was without family. Lydia was baptized, and her house- 
hold. The jailer and his household were baptized. Crispus be- 
lieved on the Lord, and his family, and the probability is that they 
were baptized. Gaius was baptized, but it is not said whether he 
had a family or not. Stephanus was baptized, and his household 
with him. Then w T e reckon Saul and the Eunuch as having no 
families, and this leaves us six persons, specified by name, and out 
of ^the six, we do not know that two of them had families — w T e mean 
Simon Magus and Gaius. This gives us a majority of four out of 
the six, who had their families baptized w 7 ith them. Lydia, the jailer, 
Stephanus, and Crispus; therefore, if we take the whole six, we have 
two-thirds who had their families baptized together with them, and 
there is not a word said about any of their families believing ex- 
cept one, and that gives us half. If we exclude Simon Magus and 



82 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Gaius as not having families — I think it quite probable that they 
had none — it leaves us four persons specified by name as having 
families, and they all had their families baptized with them ; and 
the children of Crispus are said to have believed, while nothing is 
said to this effect when speaking of the others. 

Does that establish any thing, my friends ? Is that sufficient to 
establish the fact, and warrant us (Pedobaptists) in the practice 
of family baptism ? I affirm that it is. I affirm that, if the 
Apostles, when they baptized the head of the family, baptized that 
family together with its head, without any thing being said about their 
believing, we are warranted in practicing the same. It is a prece- 
dent for the practice, especially when we take into consideration the 
fact that infants had always been in the Church ; that they had 
always been in covenant relationship with God, and that the Jews 
were accustomed to infant baptism ; for a system of proselytitm 
had been in existence from the time of Moses down to the coming 
of Christ. Whenever a Gentile desired to unite with the Church 
of God, to become associated with the Israelitiah people, and affil- 
iate with them in their worship, they received them by circumcision, 
and baptism, and sacrifice. On such occasions they baptized their 
children along with them. The Apostles were perfectly familiar 
with the practice of infant baptism, with infant Church-member- 
ship, and with the fact that infants were included in the covenant 
of God. 

(Time Expired.) 



me. brooks's first reply. 83 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I had supposed that my friend was satisfied with the discussion 
of yesterday, and that we had, at least, long enough discussed the 
question of the covenants ; but, it seems, he is hard to satisfy. He 
does not feel that the question, as he left it yesterday evening, is 
safe, and he proposes this morning to review his work. But it is 
my purpose to call his attention to what he proposes to affirm to- 
day — that " Infant baptism is authorized by the word of God." 
Does it not strike you as something peculiar, that, after a speech 
of an hour, to prove that infant baptism is thus authorized, he has 
not quoted a single passage of Scripture that has infant baptism 
in it? We are to suppose the gentleman has made his best effort. 
I am satisfied of that. He has done it, too, by the aid of Fair- 
child, one, perhaps, of the best reasoners the Pedobaptist world can 
boast on this question. This, then, is the very best that he can 
do ; and yet, not one single passage of Scripture ha£ he quoted in 
proof. 

Besides all that, I proposed, in the beginning, that this proposi- 
tion should read, " That infant baptism is authorized by the New 
Testament Scriptures." My friend would not accept it in this form. 
You now understand why he would not accept it, and why he \as 
not satisfied with his work of yesterday. He comes before you to- 
day to do it over again. 

He told us, last evening, that he had not work enough to do, but he 
returns to the covenants to-day. Now, then, I propose briefly to call 
your attention to the question of the covenants. In the first place, 
my friend has changed his ground a little to-day. Yesterday he had 
the Church beginning with Adam — and he labored, too, in his last 
speech, yesterday evening, to prove that the Gospel was preached, 
and the Church established, away back in the days of Adam. And 
yet, this morning, he thinks the Church began with Abraham. This 
is but one of the many inconsistencies he will find himself involved 
in. I wonder how in the world it was, if, according to his theory, 
there was a ^Church then, that men got into that Church ? If the 
days of Abraham, and circumcision, began the history of the 
Church, how were men signed and sealed before that time? How 
did they get into the Church ? The gentleman invited*our attention 
to Galatians iii : 17. I want to read that passage in your hearing: 

"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before 



84 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years 
after, can not disannul, that it should tnake the promise of no 
effect." 

There was, then, a promise contained in that covenant confirmed 
of God in Christ four hundred years before the law, which the law 
could not disannul. By this passage we simply want to identify that 
covenant which contained this promise. 

The passage takes us back to the seventy-fifth year of Abraham. 
(See the twelfth chapter of Genesis, which my friend read this 
morning.) Well, now, in proof of my affirmation, Abraham was 
seventy-five years of age then ; at the time Isaac was born he was 
one hundred ; Isaac, when Jacob was born, was sixty ; and Jacob, 
when he went down into Egypt, was one hundred and thirty — 25+ 
60+130=215 years. Sir Isaac Newton and Bishop Usher tell us 
that the time of the sojourn was two hundred and fifteen years. 
Well, twice two hundred and fifteen years is just exactly four hun- 
dred and thirty years. We have, then, positively made out and 
dated the covenant referred to in this passage. 

In that covenant, the Apostle says there is a promise, that 
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, can 
not disannul. I want, then, to look at the blessings promised in 
that covenant. It was promised, first, that God would make of 
him a great nation; second, that he would bless him; third, that 
he would make his name great; fourth, that he w r ould make him 
a blessing; fifth, that in him all the families of earth should be 
blessed. Now, this last is the promise that w 7 as not annulled by 
the law, instituted four hundred and thirty years after the promise. 

In the three first items we have named, neither you, nor I, nor 
an^f being on earth, to-day, has any interest. We have no interest 
in any of these promises. In the last we have an interest: "That 
in him all the families of the earth shall be blessed." 

Now. you will observe, that not a single syllable has been uttered 
in reference to circumcision. Now, then, about twelve years after this, 
as recorded in the fifteenth chapter of Genesis, after God appeared 
to Abram, and after the sacrifice had been made, and a smoking 
furnace, and a burning lamp had passed through those pieces of 
sacrifice, confirming the covenant he made with Abram, the con- 
text closes thus: ''In that same day the Lord made a covenant with 
Abram, saying: Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the 
river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates." Now, 
I need not say that you nor I have not one particle of interest in 
the promise of this covenant. It is simply a promise to Abram, 
and his fleshly seed ; neither to you, nor I, nor the Gentiles. 

We have here a second covenant with Abram, and still no cir- 
cumcision. Now, again turn we to the seventeenth chapter of Gen- 
esis, ninth verse. Abram was then ninety years old, and circum- 
cision had not yet been instituted : 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 85 

"And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep ray covenant 
therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This 
is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy 
seed after thee: every man-child among you shall be circumcised. 
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of the foreskin ; and it shall be a 
token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight 
days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your 
generation ; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of 
any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy 
house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be cir- 
cumcised : and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting 
covenant. And the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his 
foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his peo- 
ple ; he hath broken my covenant." 

Now, then, I have positively dated three covenants. The cove- 
nant of circumcision, then, is not, and can not be, the promise 
which the law could not annul ; for it was not given four hundred 
and thirty years before that law was made, but only four hundred 
and five years before. It is not the promise, then, to which the 
Apostle refers in the third chapter of Galatians. We find that four 
hundred and thirty years after the giving of this first covenant, God 
made a covenant with Israel at Sinai. The gentleman will not 
deny this. Twelve hundred years, at least, after the first covenant 
made with Abraham, as read by my friend this morning, and cen- 
turies after the covenant at Sinai was made, the Lord said: "Be- 
hold the day comes, saith the Lord, when I will make a new cove- 
nant with the house of Israel and the house of Jacob." How could 
God say, after these covenants were made for twelve hundred years, 
I will make a new covenant, and yet that new covenant be identical 
with any one of these covenants? Whenever the Lord says he will 
do any thing, that thing is yet a fixture event. My friend thinks 
this is not right. I want emphatically to say, that when the Lord 
speaks of an event in the future, it can not be of the past. Such 
a use of language is not to be attributed to the Infinite Spirit. 

Again: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, 
and the house of Jacob." The argument of my friend, to-day, is, 
that this covenant, and the covenant of circumcision, are one and 
the same thing. By the Divine right of circumcision, infants be- 
came members of the Jewish Church; so now, by baptism, infants 
become members of the Church of Christ. It will effect nothing 
for him to show that this new covenant, and either of the two first 
covenants made with Abraham, are the same; for in these two 
covenants there is not one word of circumcision. 

My friend is left to this alternative : Either to show that the new 
covenant and the covenant of circumcision are the same, or else he 
has to prove that the covenant made at Sinai and the new cove- 
nant are the same. He will not attempt the latter; for you 



8b BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

will remember, that, in his last speech, he contrasted the Sinaic 
covenant with the new covenant he was reading in the eighth of 
Hebrews. When he came to the expression "new covenant," he 
said : "New in contrast with the covenant given at Sinai." I am glad 
my friend has rid himself of this part of the work. You are right, 
Mr. Fitch, for once, since this debate began. He shuts himself up, 
then, to the covenant of circumcision. 

To prove, my dear friends, that two things are the same, we are 
to prove not only similarity, but samenesss, in every respect. I 
pledge myself, to-day, to prove, with just as much certainty, that 
a man and a monkey are one and the same animal, as that my 
friend shall prove that the Christian covenant and the covenant of 
circumcision are the same. There is as much similarity between a 
moukey and my distinguished friend or myself, as between them. 

Now, I want to call his attention to some of the things that make 
these covenants dissimilar. Remember, if they are the same, they 
must be not only perfectly similar, but identical. And yet my 
friend, in presenting his argument, tells you that circumcision has 
been changed to baptism. That is one difference. Again^ under 
the old economy, only males were circumcised ; but now he baptizes 
not only males, but females. Here is another change. As we read 
in your hearing, from the seventeenth chapter of Genesis, the Lord 
commanded all the children of Abraham to be circumcised. Under 
that covenant, then, they had to be circumcised, or " cut off from 
his people." Under this, Paul says : " If you be circumcised, Christ 
shall profit you nothing." That is — 

" You will and you won't ; 
You shall and you sha'n't; 
You 11 be damned if you do; 
You'll be damned if you do n't." 

Now, I have no idea but that this is Calvinistic enough even for 
my much respected friend before me [alluding to the President 
Moderator]. You will be lost if you are circumcised, and you will 
be lost if you are not. 

But again : These Jews were all in the covenant of circumcision, 
and had all received the sign or mark of that covenant. Yet the 
Savior says to them : " Unless ye be born of water and of the Spirit, 
or ' receive the sign of the new covenant/ ye can not enter the king- 
dom of heaven." They had all been marked, then, by the sign of 
circumcision. Now, then, he turns around and commands all " to 
be marked again " by baptism, which had only taken the place of cir- 
cumcision. We leave these absurdities and inconsistencies with him. 

Again : One circumcision is in the flesh, by the hand of the priest ; 
the other in the heart, by the Spirit of God. The first is in the 
flesh ; but the Apostle says, in his epistle to the Church at Rome 
(ii: 28, 29): "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; nor is that 
circumcision which is outward in the flesh : but he is a Jew, which 



MR. BROOKS^ FIRST REPLY. 87 

is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter." 

Now, the circumcision of that economy was in the flesh. The 
circumcision of this economy is in the heart. But Mr. Fitch would 
have you believe that baptism is now the means by which we are 
circumcised. He talks to me about making too much of baptism. 
My friend objects very seriously, when I want him to go down with 
me into the Jordan, yet he puts his sprinkling where Christ places 
the work of the Spirit, in conversion. I protest against giving to 
baptism so much significance. No, sir ; the circumcision of the heart 
is the only circumcision we have under this economy. Again, the 
Apostle says, in his epistle to the Church of the Colossians (ii: 11) : 
"In him also ye are circumcised, with the circumcision made with- 
out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the cir- 
cumcision of Christ." This circumcision was made without hands. 
Are there any differences here? 

Again: Membership, in that economy, was founded in birth and 
purchase. Every male child in the family of Abraham was circum- 
cised, and every male servant. But Jesus says: "Unless ye be 
born of water and of the Spirit, ye can not enter the kingdom of 
God." The one was the birth of flesh, and the other that of the 
Spirit of the living God. 

But, once more : If this idea that baptism has succeeded circum- 
cision is true, I have wondered frequently why that council, assembled 
at Jerusalem to decide this question, did not summarily dispose of it. 
Suppose this question of difference had gone up before that body 
which met recently at Cynthiana, and some one had proposed to 
have Brother Fitch and the rest circumcised. They would have 
said, " Brethren, baptism is in the place of circumcision now ; cir- 
cumcision is done away with." Now, did it never occur to you, 
how easy the inspired Apostles could have disposed of it in that way ? 
If baptism had come in place of circumcision, how easy would it 
have been for them to have said, "Brethren, there is no difficulty 
on this subject ; it is right now for men and infants to be baptized, 
but not circumcised, for baptism has taken its place." Do you not 
think the conference would have confirmed this view? Just as certain 
as the world stauds. Certainly, sir, certainly, we can settle this 
question! The world grows wiser as it grows old, and my Methodist 
brethren have grown wiser than the Apostles! But now, inasmuch 
as my friend has conceded that the covenant given at Sinai and 
the Christian covenant are not the same, we want to proceed with 
the discussion. 

We turn now to the New Testament. We go into that book that 
contains all there is about baptism. The Old Testament does not 
speak of it, and we have demonstrated that the covenant of circum- 
cision and the covenant of Christ are not one, because there are 
discrepancies in them. Then the whole dogma of infant baptism 



88 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

falls, for upon the question of identity the gentleman rests his ar- 
gument. It is the only argument under the heavens that he can 
make. He confessed, yesterday, that upon this rested the question 
of infant membership in the Church of God, and we have seen that 
these covenants can not be identical; then there is no infant member- 
ship in the Church. I turn to the ministry of John the Baptist : 
"And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their 
God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, 
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient 
to the wisdom of the just ; to make ready a people prepared for 
the Lord."— Luke i: 16, 17. 

"And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the 
baptism of repentance for the remission sf sins" — Luke iii: 2. 

Now, in the mission of John the Baptist, there is made no provision 
for infant baptism, or infant membership. Infants can not turn to the 
Lord. John could never have turned the little infants my friend has 
sprinkled. These little ones had no sins to remit — no sins to ton-, 
fess. Besides, the very circumstances of John's baptism forbade it. 

"And then went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of 
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, con- 
fessing their sins." — Mark i: 5. " Then came also publicans to be 
baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?" — Luke 
iii: 12. "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- 
ham to our father; for I say unto you that God is able of these 
stones to raise up children unto Abraham." — Matthew iii : 9. 

Those who came to John's baptism, went out to be baptized of 
him. They confessed their sins when they were baptized. Moreover, 
on one occasion, when they were standing on their birthrights, and 
thought they had a right to this privilege, whether they should con- 
fess or not, the Baptist said God could raise up children unto Abra- 
ham out of the stones under their feet. You must come repenting 
of your sins, or you can not come at all. 

We call your attention, in the next place, to the passage to be 
found in John iv: 1: "When therefore the Lord knew how the 
Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples 
than John." 

But my friend does not make his disciples, and then baptize 
them. Jesus made his disciples, and then baptized them. How 
did he make them? He went out preaching the Gospel of the 
kingdom of heaven ; and then, when the people believed him, he bap- 
tized them. How does my friend do? He baptizes them, and then 
makes them disciples afterward. 

But now, again : It may be a question of interest to know whom 
Christ regards as a disciple. He made and baptized disciples. 
Now, whom does he regard as disciples? In Luke xiv : 27, we 
read: "And whosoever doth not deny himself and bear his cross, 
and come after me, can not be my disciple." 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 89 

I wonder if those little infants could "bear their cross, and 
come after him"? The gentleman manages to get up the smartest 
babies I ever saw in my life. He can make them bear their cross 
and come to Jesus when they are too young to walk. But I do 
not hold him responsible. He was rocked in the cradle of Meth- 
odism, and I am not astonished that he believes as he does. I am 
not here to question his sincerity, or his ability. I do not believe he 
has a superior in the Conference with which he is connected; but 
his system is untenable. 

But, again: "And John also was baptizing in iEnon, near to 
Salini, because there was much water there: and they came and 
were baptized.'" — John iii: 23. 

I presume to say, with great confidence, that these were not in- 
fants. Thus, so far as John was concerned, no infants were baptized. 

We pass now to the consideration of the passage to which my 
friend invited your attention this morning. 

Matthew says, xviii : 19: "Go, teach all nations, baptizing them 
into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Mark says, 
xvi: 15: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every 
creature. He that belicveth and is baptized, shall be saved, but 
he that belie veth not shall be damned." 

Now, I need not say to an intelligent audience like this, that 
if any part of this commission applies to a class of persons, then all 
of it applies to individuals of that class. The same class of per- 
sons are included under this commission, and if any one part ap- 
plies to that class, all of it applies. Will my friend tell me that 
to believe, repent, and be damned applies to infants? No; he 
would recoil from a position like that. He will tell you that water 
only applies to the infant. How is this ? Christ gave the com- 
mission under which man should go out and bring the nations to 
him. The gentleman takes a great class of the human family, and 
applies water only — and precious little of that — to them, and yef, 
excludes them from all the rest in that, commission. No ; that com- 
mission says : " Go ye and preach the Gospel ; go and teach the na- 
tions. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he 
that believeth not shall be damned." 

More than that, I want to invite your attention to that very ex- 
pression, "he that believeth not shall be damned." He tells us that 
the commission applies to infants. Then the commission says: 
"He that believeth not shall be damned." Infants can not believe; 
therefore, infants shall be damned. This is the logical consequence 
of the position of my friend, when he attempts to show the commis- 
sion to be applicable to infants. These are the beautiful inconsisten- 
cies that gather around his heart and head under circumstances like 
these. But he tells us this passage should be translated, "Go, disci- 
ple the nations by baptizing them." Now, I will simply sav to him, 
8 



90 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

that there is not a scholar on earth that would translate it in that 
way for his head. Mr. Campbell, indeed, translated the word 
" Matheetuo" disciple, but this does not affect the case in the least, 
for the idea of teaching is inseparably connected both with the 
Greek and English word. You can not disciple without teaching, 
so Mr. Campbell affirms; but infants can not be taught; therefore, 
they can not be discipled ; and hence there is no authority in the 
commission for baptizing them. 

How are the nations discipled now? By teaching them. It does 
not make any difference to me whether he translates or not. I told 
you that whenever King James did not suit him, he would go to 
translating. If I should translate, nobody would think strange of 
it, for I know there are innumerable errors, which ought to be cor- 
rected ; but my friend belongs to that class of people who have refused 
to translate. Yet, every time that the word of God does not suit 
him, he goes to translating. What is to be thought of a man whp 
opposes the revision of the word of God, and yet, every time it 
differs with him, walks up to it and translates it just to suit his 
purposes! Let him go to his Bible Society, which, knowing that 
there are twenty -four thousand errors in the common version, vet 
refuse to correct them, lest they should have to translate baptizo, 
and put it out before the world, that the people might see it and 
know its meaning. 

But again, that you may see this commission in its simplicity, I 
will read it, as a w'hole, to you: 

"Go ye therefore into all the world, teach all nations, preach the 
Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized into 
the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, shall be saved, and 
he that believeth not shall be damned." 

Now, you have clearly before you the import of this commission. 
It is the organic law of the kingdom of Christ, and hence, every 
part of it is equally sacred. When, therefore, my friend takes one 
single article of that constitution, and applies it, to the exclusion 
of every thing else in it, to a large class of the human family, I 
most solemnly protect against such shameful procedure. 

We now invite your attention to the Acts of the Apostles on Pen- 
tecost. 

This is, indeed, a most important passage. If the apostles 
of Jesus Christ, who started out under that commission, did not 
know what it meant, certainly my friend does not. These, indeed, 
did know, for they were guided by.tbe inspiration of the Spirit. 
They knew the import of the language of the Savior when he said, 
"Disciple the nations." My friend tells us this morning that he 
" believes all the nations of the earth are fit subjects for baptism ; " 
the infant, murderer, liar, or thief, he would baptize -them all ; 
but he said the reason that he could not baptize some of them was, 
that they "deliberately refused to be baptized." Why does he 



mr. brooks's first reply. 91 

not do as he does with the infants — baptize them anyhow? If I 
believed all nations fit for baptism, I would go out and gather 
them in and plunge them into the water, nolens volens, as he sprinkles 
the babies. I wonder if the little squalling, kicking baby is willing 
to be baptized. But the apostles understood that commission ; 
they fully comprehended its import. Now, then, were there infants 
baptized on this occasion? We read: "Now when they heard this, 
they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and the rest 
of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter 
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the 
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost. Then they that gladly received his 
word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them 
about three thousand souls." — Acts ii : 37, 38, 41. 

I wonder if these darling little infants gladly received the word 
of God? And here I want to show you how smart the infants of 
my friend are: "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer. 
Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord 
added to the Church daily such as should be saved." — Acts ii : 
42, 47. 

Now, just think of it: though they were infants, they gladly re- 
ceived the word of God. They were pricked in their hearts and 
cried out, "Men and brethren, what shall Ave do?" And they 
''continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship," 
and broke bread, praising God! and they found favor with the 
people. , 

But here let me say, my friend is guilty of sophistry in the 
use of the word children. Children may come into the Church 
of Christ, but that infant children can come into that Church, he 
has to prove. He tells us that the Apostle says, " The promise is to 
you and to your children." What promise? "Why, baptism." 
But what sort of proof did he produce to show that baptism was 
the promise? What was the promise? I have before me here an 
extract from Dr. Doddridge. He says : " The promise is to you and 
to your children" Considering that the gift of the Spirit had been 
mentioned just before, it seems most natural to interpret this as a 
reference to that passage in Joel, which had been so largely re- 
cited above, verse 17, etc., where God promises the effusion of the 
Spirit on their sons and their daughters. "Comment in loco," 

That is what Dr. Doddridge thinks of it, But the promise is, 
" To you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even 
to as many as the Lord our God shall call." Now, we know who 
the promise is to. It is to these people, and their children, even 
as many as the Lord shall call. Disciples are called by the gos- 
pel ; but I wonder how the gentleman calls the infants? When my 
friend can tell us how he calls them, we will yield the question. 



92 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Whenever infants get old enough to be called by the Gospel, if he 
will bring them down to my church, I will baptize them sure 
enough. 

We pass on, then, to the consideration of the next baptism that 
meets our attention; the baptism of the Samaritans, Acts viii : 5 : 

"Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached 
Christ unto them. And the people, with one accord, gave heed unto 
those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles 
which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came 
out of many that were possessed with them ; and many taken with 
palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy 
in that city. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which 
beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people 
of Samaria, giving out that he himself was some great one: to 
whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying: 
This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, 
because that of long time he had bewitched them w T ith sorceries. 
But, when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the 
kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, 
both men and women. -Then Simon himself believed also; and 
when he was baptized,.he continued with Philip, and wondered, be- 
holding the miracles and signs which were done." 

Now, then, in this city, both meu and women were bap- 
tized. I wonder why the Evangelist Luke did not mention tho 
infants that were baptized? Do you suppose my friend, Mr. 
Fitch, if he had been there, and had made his report to his presid- 
ing elder, would not have told all about the babies? Fortunately, 
for them, and the world, the hour has come when he can not do 
much of it. 

In this case, Philip baptized no infants, and, therefore, Luke did net 
report them. If, therefore, Luke intended a faithful record of events 
in that city, and infants were baptized, has he not failed in what 
he attempted ? He was there to give us a record of what occurred ; 
and yet he says not a word about infants. That is not all. The 
custom of this same writer, when children were present, was to men- 
tion them. In Acts xxi : 5, he says : 

"And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and 
went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with our wives 
and children, till we were out of the city ; and we kneeled down on 
the shore and prayed." 

Here is a matter of small moment. People are simply trav- 
eling through a country, and it becomes a matter of note to the 
Evangelist that they have their wives and children with them ; but 
down there, in Samaria, in a matter of so much importance, in the 
estimation of my friend, as the baptism of infants, the writer says 
nothing about their baptism. 

I suppose I need not detain you to-day in talking of the families 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 93 

of Saul and the eunuch, for I believe ray friend acknowledges that 
these had no households or families. Yet I know no reason why 
the old bachelor Paul might not have had a household, as well as 
the old maid Lydia, and why infant children might not have been 
found in the household of Paul, as well as in that of Lydia. 

I pass on now to the consideration of household baptisms. 
I want to make one remark about these. My friend argued 
that because there were four of these, mentioned in the Bible, and 
that because out of eight or nine persons named, four of the^e were 
heads of families ; hence, with the head, all the household were bap- 
tized; that according to this custom, the infants in families were 
baptized also. It would be all very well, if he could prove that 
there was a single infant baptized in any one of the families. When 
he shall prove this, his argument will be worth something, but 
until he shall do this, it is simply against him ; for in all these 
houses there were no infants. Then, it is presumed, the writer 
mentioned these as whole households, gathered, by faith, into the 
Church, because this was something unusual. 

My friend told you, this morning, that I had a peculiar theory in 
regard to Lydia's household ; but he is mistaken; it was the jailer's 
daughter that married the one-eyed shoemaker. It was a Methodist 
preacher, named Theophilus, who married Lydia's daughter, and he 
had but one child in the world. She was married to Zeno, and 
lived in the city of Thyatira, and had just nineteen children; seven 
of whom were under seven years, and evciyone had been sprinkled. 
But he complains that I should make such suppositions, and objects 
very seriously to it. He makes — 

(Time Expired.) 



94 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, And Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My worthy brother has told you that I came here to-day, to do 
the work that I should have done yesterday. I have done no such 
thing. He knows, and you all know, that an examination of the 
Abrahamic covenant applies legitimately to the discussion, and the 
presentation of the proposition which we are now debating. 

The gentleman did not reply to the speech which I made upon 
the Abrahamic covenant. He made a great many assertions, but 
proved noue of them by the Scriptures. My. arguments were based 
upon the word of God, and he can not set aside those arguments. 
But he demonstrated one thing most clearly to my mind, and that 
was, that he did not understand the Abrahamic covenant. I shall, 
therefore, take occasion to present it to him again, very briefly, in 
order that he may be enlightened with reference to it. I knew 
exactly what position he would take. I knew that he would follow 
his worthy leader, Mr. Campbell, who, in his debate with Dr. Rice, 
affirmed that God made three distinct and separate covenants with 
Abraham. He labored arduously, earnestly, and faithfully, for a 
considerable length of time, to prove what he had affirmed with 
reference to these transactions. But he signally failed, as did my 
worthy opponent. God made but one covenant with Abraham, and 
when he affirms the position that he made three covenants, he places 
himself in the ridiculous position that he occupied yesterday, when 
he affirmed tfyat Jesus Christ repealed the moral law, and then re- 
enacted it. 

These three covenants, for which Mr. Campbell contended, and 
for which my worthy friend contends, contain, all of them, the 
same grant, expressed in substantially the same terms. There is 
really but one covenant, and when any of the sacred writers have 
occasion to refer to it, they speak of it in the singular number. 
Paul calls it emphatically the covenant of circumcision. I have 
examined the subject carefully, and his statements amount to 
nothing, so far as this argument is concerned. It is very generally 
known that the chronology of the Bible is not well established, and 
my opponent very well knows that the Jews, in order to invalidate 
the claims of Jesus Christ to the Messiahship, made changes in the 
Old Testament, and that there are discrepancies between the Septua- 
gint, the translation made at Alexandria,, and our common version of 
the Bible. But if he should establish all for which he conteuded; 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 95 

if his chronology is correct, and if God did actually make three 
distinct covenants with Abraham, it avails him nothing, because 
we can show that the covenant which contains circumcision as the 
sign and seal of it, embraced in its provisions Jesus Christ, and 
that Saint Paul refers to it, and identifies it with the Gospel cove- 
nant. 

We were told that no living man had any interest in the first 
three specifications of the covenant. The first specification con- 
tained in the covenant is this — "I will bless thee, and make thy 
name great, and thou shalt be a blessing." Are we not included 
in this promise to Abraham? There was included, in the first 
place, the blessing of justification by faith; for it is said that "his 
faith was accounted to him for righteousness," and our faith is 
impuied to us for righteousness, if we believe God. In Gal. iii : 
9, we read the following language: "So, then, they which be of 
faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Again we read, Gal. 
iii: 13, 14: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
being made a curse for us : for it is written, Cursed is every one 
that hangeth on a tree ; that the blessing of Abraham might 
come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive 
the promise of the Spirit through faith." Yet we are gravely told 
that we have no interest in this specification of the Abrahamic 
covenant. St. Paul thought and taught differently. The second 
specification of the covenant is as follows: I will make of thee a 
great nation ; I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth ; thou 
shalt be the father of many nations," etc. This is the passage con- 
tained in the covenant, as my friend calls it, which embraces cir- 
cumcision. "I have made thee the father of many nations." AVe 
will let St. Paul decide as to its meaning. I like him much better 
as a commentator than my friend, Mr. Brooks. "For the promise, 
that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham or to 
his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace ; to the end the 
promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which is of 
the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is 
the father of us all, (as it is written, 1 have made thee a father of 
many nations)." — Rom. iv : 13, 16, 17. Let me here remark that 
all these passages quoted from St. Paul distinctly and emphatically 
set forth the spiritual character of the Abraham covenant. The 
foregoing passage is found in the very covenant which contains 
circumcision. If God did actually make three covenants with 
Abraham, this one, which contains circumcision, is a spiritual cove- 
nant, and Paul identities it with the Gospel covenant. He tells 
us that Abraham was the father of many nations, as it was written, 
"I have made thee the father of many nations, etc. 

In Galatians iii : 7, 29, it is again referred to: "Know ye there- 
fore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of 



96 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Abraham. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." 

If this covenant was not spiritual, and not designed to be perpet- 
ual, and is not even the Gospel covenant, how can. it be possible 
that we, who have faith in Jesus Christ, are the children of Abra- 
ham any more than the children of Noah, Abel, or Adam ? 

In the 29th verse we read : " And if ye be Christ's, then are ye 
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." 

That is the promise contained in this covenant, be it what it 
may. If we are not the children of Abraham, the heirs of the 
promise which God made to him when he entered into covenant 
with him, then we are not Christ's ; and if we are Christ's, we are 
the children of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. 
This covenant had but one token, or sign, and that was circum- 
cision. 

My good brother represented me as contradicting myself. He 
has misrepresented me repeatedly. I do not charge him with willful 
misrepresentation; I do not believe he would be guilty of that; but 
he is unguarded in his statements, and careless in his investigations, 
and makes such bold assertions, which he can not prove, that he 
seems not to be, at all times, conscious of what he is doing. He 
has repeatedly misrepresented me, as these reports will doubtless 
show. He represented me as having said on yesterday that the 
Church dated back to Adam, and he says that to-day I dated it 
back to the time when God entered into covenant with Abraham. 
I did not do it. I simply stated that God had a kingdom — a spirit- 
ual kingdom — and that every man who believed God, and the prom- 
ises which he gave Adam of Christ, was a subject of that spiritual 
kingdom; but that there was no Church through which believers 
were brought into covenant relations with God ; that they were first 
brought into covenant relationship with God in the family of Abra- 
ham. Then and there the first visible Church was organized with 
the charter, which continues unchanged in that Church to-day. 
There were believers and subjects of God's spiritual kingdom prior 
to the days of Abraham, but no visible organized Church ; conse- 
quently there was no necessity for an initiatory rite. 

I have been pleased with the spirit of my friend Brooks's speeches, 
but I think he said a great many things in his speech this morning 
that he might very well have omitted. There were many of his 
statements, allusions, and expressions, this morning, which do not 
reflect honor upon him. I shall simply notice one or two of them, 
and pass on. Hereafter, when he indulges in any such remarks, I 
shall leave them unnoticed. He told you -that there was no more 
similarity between the Abrahamic covenant and the Gospel cove- 
nant than there was between himself and a monkey. I will re- 
ply to that assertion by simply saying that if there is as much 
similarity between Mr. Brooks and a monkey as there is between 



MR. FTTCn's SECOND ADDRESS. 97 

the Abrahamic covenant and the Gospel covenant, then I am not 
debating with the sort of animal I thought. He is, in that case, 
certainly a monkey. 

He demonstrated clearly to my mind another fact, and that is, 
that he does not understand circumcision. I verily believe that all 
his brethren misapprehend the nature and design of circumcision. 
If I could only assist them to see it in the light of divine truth, 
their objections to infant baptism would cease, and they would allow 
the children to remain where God has placed them, by positive legal 
enactment. I have a number of quotations from Saint Paul which 
I want to read to my opponent, to prove that circumcision was not 
merely a fleshly mark, or national distinction, by which the Jews 
were to be distinguished from other people ; but that it was spiritual 
in its import and its character. I will first read Deut. x : 16 : " Cir- 
cumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff- 
necked." " And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, 
and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine 
heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayst live." — Deut. xxx: 6. 
" Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskin of 
your heart." — Jer. iv : 4. Does not this last passage indicate a deep 
spirituality — an entire consecration to God, and separation from 
sin ? " Take away the foreskin of your heart." 

Now we will hear Saint Paul on this subject: "For he is not a 
Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision, which 
is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; 
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit and not in the 
letter ; wnose praise is not of men, but of God." — Rom. ii : 28, 29. 
Under the former dispensation a man might have been circumcised 
in the flesh, and uncircumcised in heart. So a man, to-day, may be 
baptized, so far as the outward ceremony is concerned, and yet his 
heart never have undergone that radical change which is indicated 
by baptism. Circumcision of the heart was the thing that was to 
be insisted upon then, and baptism of the heart is the thing to be 
insisted upon now. If circumcision was only a fleshly mark, what 
does the gentleman understand by the expression, " Every uncir- 
cumcised male child shall be cut off from the people of the Lord"? 
How should he be cut off? His uncircumcision did not make him 
any less the literal seed of Abraham. Nor did his circumcision 
make him any more the lineal descendant of Abraham. His cir- 
cumcision constituted him one of Abraham's spritual and cove- 
nanted seed. If he was not circumcised in the flesh and in the 
heart, he was cut off from the congregation of the Lord, and had no 
part or lot in that which was spiritual, and which required a man 
to love God with all his heart, mind, and strength. The New 
Testament gives us more light upon this subject. 

Paul says: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circum- 
cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of 
9 



98 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." "What does he mean by 
the circumcision of Christ? He did not simply mean that act by 
which Christ was circumcised when a child. He must unquestion- 
ably have meant something else. The circumcision to which he 
refers is baptism, for he immediately says: "Buried with him in 
baptism." Mr. B. represents me as placing baptism where the 
Holy Spirit ought to be. This is not the first time he has repre- 
sented me as taking that position. He simply misunderstood me. 
We have in baptism just what was indicated in circumcision. In 
other words, baptism is to us just what circumcision was to the 
ancient Jews. The circumcision of Christ, made without hands, is 
the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart, which is set forth by 
water baptism. 

Water baptism represents the work of the Holy Spirit in the re- 
generation and sanctification of man, and, because of this fact, the 
sacred writers sometimes attribute to baptism that which it simply 
represents. Paul does not teach that the outward baptism of water 
puts away the filth of the flesh. He simply teaches that a change 
of heart is not now represented by a mark in the flesh, as formerly, 
but by the application of water to the body. The application of 
water to a person, which we call baptism, and the mark in the 
flesh, called circumcision, have both the same spiritual import. 
They are, therefore, the same Christian rite, changed in its outward 
form, but not restricted in its application. Infants areas much entitled 
to it now as formerly. While I am on this part of the subject, I 
will call the attention of my brother to another fact. We are fre- 
quently asked why circumcision was changed into baptism? We 
will explain this. Circumcision not only indicated the change of 
heart, which must take place to constitute a man a Christian, but 
it looked forward to Christ, and whenever a man submitted to this 
rite, he virtually said, by that fact, "I believe the promise God 
made to Abraham, and that the Messiah will come." So when 
Christ did come in the flesh, it was absolutely necessary to change 
the form of the sacrament, and it was changed from circumcision to 
baptism. Circumcision looked forward, and pointed to the coming of 
Christ; baptism looked backward. We virtually say, b} T being bap- 
tized, and having our children baptized, that we believe that Christ 
has come. You can see the appropriateness of the expression of St. 
Paul, when he says that Christ profiteth us nothing if we are cir- 
cumcised, because, by this act, we look for Christ yet to come, 
whereas, when converted to Christ, you must have faith in him, 
and by being baptized in the name of Jesus, you acknowledge that 
you believe that Christ has come, in the flesh, and that the son of 
Mary, the de.-pised Xazarene, is the Christ. 

I hope that this will fully satisfy the gentleman as to the reasons 
why the sacrament was changed, in its external form, from circumci- 
sion, a mark in the flesh, to water baptism. But we contend that 
it was only changed in its outward form, and not restricted, in its 



ME. FITCH'S 8EC0ND ADDRESS. 99 

application, to adults, to the exclusion of infants. Does that meet- 
ing, to which my brother Brooks referred, decide that circumcision 
was still to be practiced ? We know that the Jews would have 
continued to circumcise their children, and the Gentiles would have 
circumcised theirs, also. If they chose to keep it as a national 
distinction, they might, but they could not practice it in its spir- 
itual import without rejecting Christ. If it had been the purpose 
of the apostles, on that occasion, to restrict it hereafter to adults, 
and to cut off infants from their rights and privileges in the Church 
of God, I am satisfied they would most emphatically have declared 
that fact. 

Thus we have shown, in our speech this morning, that God, by 
positive legislative enactment, put children into the Church, and 
instead of calling upon us for a "Thus saith the Lord" to show 
why the sacrament of initiation, the sacrament that indicated cleans- 
ing, and purifying of the heart, should still be given to infants, we 
call upon them to show when Jesus Christ, at any time, repealed 
that law, and restricted the membership of the Church to adults 
alone. How does that compare with your ideas of a full develop- 
ment of the Gospel and the Church ? Under the former dispensa- 
tion, infants were allowed a place in the Church. But when Christ, 
by whom all things were to be perfected, developed, and fulfilled, 
came, he cut off more than one-half of the membership, by ex- 
cluding infants altogether, according to the teaching of Mr. B. 

Our attention was called to this passage: "He that believeth, 
and is baptized, shall be saved ; and he that believeth not shall be 
damned." I doubt very much whether I ought to notice this pas- 
sage, simply because the argument based upon it is not at all rele- 
vant to the question in hand. Does my brother mean to teach 
that the simple act of faith in Jesus Christ, and the outward act of 
baptism, saves the man infallibly ? If he does, then he is an advo- 
cate for unconditional perseverance. He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned. The 
objection which he raises here to infant baptism is, that infants 
can not exercise the faith required as a condition to baptism. It 
is just as much a condition of salvation as it is of baptism. If 
infants can not be baptized because they can not believe, how can 
they be saved, when Christ has said " He that believeth not shall 
be damned " ? Infants received circumcision without faith, while 
adults were circumcised upon the condition of faith ; so infants may 
be baptized before they have faith, while adults are required to 
believe. Jesus Christ, while on earth, recognized children as be- 
longing to his kingdom, for he said "Of such is the kingdom of, 
heaven." He classed them with believers, and included them in 
his kingdom. If they do not belong to the kingdom of God, then 
they must be in the kingdom of Satan, for there are but two king- 
doms in this world. 

Time Expired. 



100 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend complained that I did not know that the question as 
to the identity of the covenants had something to do with the dis- 
cussion of the subject before us to-day. He is wholly mistaken 
here. I was fully aware of the fact that upon the demonstration 
of this principle depended the question of infant membership; but 
I gave the gentleman all day yesterday to prove that one thing, and 
I thought he would surely be satisfied with his work; but it seems 
he is not, and he can not make a speech to-day without bringing 
this matter into the discussion. I want him to get directly to the 
proposition. 

He wants to prove that infant baptism is authorized by the 
word of God. I want him to show us wherein infants and bap- 
tism are mentioned in some passage of Scripture — just one passage. 
I regret that my friend calls me away from the discussion of thi3 
question to-day. He knows full well that when we come to the 
question: Is infant baptism mentioned in the word of God? he 
can not show it. This can not be done, and hence he would mis- 
lead this intelligent audience, by an appeal to the covenants of the 
Jews, that belong to the past. But, as my friend persists in this 
course, I will accommodate him a little while in this direction; I 
shall read the record of the new covenant, as given by Paul, in 
Hebrews viii : 6-11 : 

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how 
much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was es- 
tablished upon better promises. For if that first covenant had 
been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of 
Israel and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the 
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they con- 
tinued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after tho^e days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, 
and write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, and 
they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man 
his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; 
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." 



mr. brooks's second reply. 101 

The gentleman contends that this covenant, and the one that pre- 
ceded it, are identical, notwithstanding the difference that the 
Apostle makes in this chapter. The Apostle says, first : " He is the 
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better 
promises." Is there no difference there? Second: That was faulty, 
this faultless. Third : This is not according to that. Fourth : The 
old covenant was written upon tables of stone ; this on the hearts of 
the people. 

My friend told us, this morning, it was the same old law 
that w r as written on the hearts of the people. But did not the 
Apostle, in the passage that precedes, say: " By how much, also, he 
is the mediator of a better covenant f " It is the same old law, and 
yet it is a better covenant, and established on better promises ! But 
how will my friend go to work to write this covenant on the hearts 
of infants ? He simply can not do it. Infants can not hear it, and 
they can not believe it. 

But again : Into the old covenant they entered by natural birth, 
and hence had to be taught to know the Lord. Into this they come 
by the birth of water, and of the Spirit: and all must know the 
Lord, from the least unto the greatest. Into that covenant they 
came by natural birth, and the parent had to teach the child the 
law ; but, in this, the Apostle says: " All must know the Lord, from 
the least to the greatest." But infants can not know the Lord, and, 
therefore, can not come into this covenant. Now, when my friend 
can show that infants are capable of knowing the law of God, then 
he can show that they can come into this covenant. 

In that " he who transgressed the law died without mercy." In 
this he says: "I will be merciful to their transgressions." Infants 
are, then, positively excluded ; for they have no transgressions. 
They have not transgressed the law, and are positively excluded 
from this covenant. 

In the old covenant, a remembrance of sins was made every year ; 
in the new, he says : "Their sins and their iniquities I will remem- 
ber no more." Infants have no iniquities to be remembered. 
Clearly, then, infants are excluded by the very terms of the new 
covenant. 

Before I pass away from this thought, I want to allude to the 
fact to which my friend invited attention, toward the close of his 
speech. If infants are excluded from this covenant, he tells us 
they are damned. He never has learned, from his Bible, that the 
Lord Jesus Christ made no provision to bring people into this cov- 
enant, until they should come to know the Lord ; and, if they die be- 
fore this, they die before they transgress the law, and simply because 
of Adam's sin. Now, the Apostle says: " As by the offense of one, 
judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the 
righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justifica- 
tion of life." — Rom. v : 18. Infants, and all others, are released 



102 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

from the consequences of that sin ; hence, infants, having no per- 
sonal sins, are safe, if they die in infancy. 

I want, before I proceed to review my friend, to finish the argu- 
ment interrupted this morning. I was briefly commenting upon 
these cases of household baptism. In regard to the baptism of the 
house of Cornelius, we have these facts: The friends of Cornelius, 
Luke tells us, were there, on that occasion, to hear all things com- 
manded of God. I wonder if infants were capable of this, x4gain, 
the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and they spoke with tongues. Are 
infants capable of speaking in unknown tongues ? 

In the household of the Philippian jailer, the Apostle spoke unto 
him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. All 
in his house were old enough, then, to hear the word of God ! He 
believed and rejoiced in God, with all his house. They were old 
enough to believe, and to rejoice! 

Paul visited Corinth, and baptized the household of Stephanus, 
about Anuo Domini 51, and five years after, he tells us, this same 
household are ministering to the saints. They were very rapid in 
their growth, at least, if they grew, in that length of time, from in- 
fante to ministers of the Gospel. 

Now, in reference to the case of Lydia. In order to make out 
his cause, my friend must make four suppositions. First: That 
Lydia had, at this time, or very recently, at least, a husband. Sec- 
ond : That they had infant children. Third: That these children 
were with her at Philippi. Fourth : That these children were bap- 
tized. 

Who has the right to make suppositions about this case any more 
than I ? If my friend has a right to make four suppositions to get 
children into the house of Lydia, I have a right to assume that she 
had one child married to a shoemaker, or any body else. If sup- 
positions are to be used, I assume the right to make as many of 
them as my friend makes. The first supposition is, that Lydia had 
at this time, or very recently, a husband. If she had a husband, 
she would certainly have mentioned him. She would not have 
said "Come into my house," if she had had a husband. She would 
have said, " Come into our house." That she had infant children, 
there is not one particle of evidence. That they were with her is 
simply impossible. It is not to be supposed that Lydia, in traveling 
from Thyatira to Philippi, would take her infant children. Grant 
that she was married, and had children ; it is not to be presumed 
that she would have carried her infant children upon such a journey. 
But even if such were the case, he has to prove that these infants 
were baptized. Finally, we are told that Paul came out of the 
jail, and went into the house of Lydia, and comforted the brethren; 
these were not infants. 

My friend said much in regard to the number of household bap- 
tisms mentioned in the New Testament". I have said that if in 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY. 103 

any one of these there -were infants, he might infer that there were 
infants in the others; and that Paul had mentioned these household 
baptisms because the heads of families with their children had been 
baptized. But we deny that there were infants in any of them. 

To-day my opponent is on the affirmative, and yet is trying to 
place me in that position. He tells us that there were infants in the 
former Church, or dispensation, or whatever he calls it. There 
were infants in that, he tells us, and hence, in this, unless I can 
show that Christ has abrogated the law that admitted infants into 
that. In other words, the silence of Scripture upon this question, 
proves that infants are in the kingdom of Christ. By the same 
logic, with which he would rush infants into the Church, I will 
show that the Roman Catholic is right in the burning of incense 
and candles, and many other things unauthorized by the Scriptures. 
Who ever heard of a man pleading the silence of the word of God 
to prove his position, when his business is to affirm that that word 
sanctions that position ? 

He says, infants ought to be baptized, but concedes that there is 
no "Thus saith the Lord" for it. I will frankly confess, that of all 
the logic I have known on earth, this caps the climax. Why, 
Brigham Young could in the same way claim authority for all of 
his abominations, and the Catholic Church prove all it teaches. 
It is this very sophistry that has dragged into the Church all these 
things that have been disannulled by the abrogation of the Mosaic 
law. 

I want to notice, briefly, one or two passages more. I call your 
attention next to Romans vi: 3-5: "Know ye not, that so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; 
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the 
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we 
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be 
also in the likeness of his resurrection." 

Again : " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead." — Colossians ii : 12. 

Here the Apostle tells us that those in the Church of Rome, and 
in the Church of the Colossians, had been buried in baptism ; more 
than that, they had been raised again, through faith in the opera- 
tion of God. He means that by faith they went down into this 
water, and by the faith of Christ came up. Were these infants ? 
They were buried with Christ; they were raised with him; and it 
was all through faith in Jesus Christ. Had they not had faith, 
they would not have gone down into this water. And this is what 
the Savior meant when he said : " He that believeth and is baptized, 
shall be saved." Saved where, my friends? In heaven? He 
knows the expression saved is here equivalent to pardon. I will 



104 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

not accuse him of trying to misrepresent us ; but I want him to be 
careful. He knows, full well, that we teach that a man is saved 
in baptism from his past sins only. That is the faith of the Chris- 
tian Church. 

I invite your attention next to a passage to which my friend 
alluded this morning : " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, 
and all passed through the sea." — 1 Cor. x : 1. 

He tells us this was a national baptism, and that of course all 
the infants were baptized with the others. The Apostle makes this 
a type of Christian baptism. Now, my friend argues, that as there 
were infants in the type, there must be infants in the antitype. By 
the same logic we might prove that infidels, and even cattle, are to 
be included in this baptism ; for the infants were just as unconscious 
as these last when they passed through. The cattle had as much 
conception of the baptism that occurred there, as had the little 
infants that passed through with the Israelites. The Apostle Paul, 
in his Epistle to the Hebrews, says in reference to them, that "they 
passed through by faith." When infants get old enough to come 
by faith to baptism, then we will receive them. 

But one more passage, and we are done with this investigation. 
1 Peter iii : 20, 21 : " Which sometime were disobedient, w r hen once 
the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark 
was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by 
water." [Before I pass away from the passage upon which we have 
just commented, I want to show my friend the effect of his logic, 
when turned against him. The Apostle here makes the passage of 
the ark through the water a type of baptism. Now, then, in the 
type, there were eight souls, men and women ; therefore, in the an- 
titype, there can be none but men and women.] The like figure 
whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience 
toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

Now, Peter is writing here to all Christians. It is what we call 
one of the Catholic Epistles. He says of them : they are saved by 
baptism. How? In that it is the answer of a good conscience 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When has a man the 
answer of a good conscience? When has your child the answer of 
a good conscience? When he obeys your commands. When has 
a man a good conscience toward God ? When he obeys his com- 
mands. In obeying the command to be baptized, all the primitive 
Christians had a good conscience, which they could not have had 
without obeying the command of Jesus Christ. Now I affirm that, 
if my friend, Mr. Fitch, was baptized in infancy, he has not, and 
can not have the answer of a good conscience toward God in this 
matter. He may tell me his parents had him baptized, but this is 
a matter which he does not know, and his conscience can not answer 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY. 105 

to it. Moreover, there is not a lady or gentleman in this house, 
baptized or sprinkled in infancy, who can have such answer. 
Hence, I protest most solemnly against infant baptism. To practice 
infant baptism is to take away all that is efficacious in baptism. 
Peter says, that in all these churches they were saved through the 
answer of a good conscience, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
There were, then, most emphatically, no infants in the Primitive 
Church. 

But my friend, in his discourse this morning, called our attention 
to some statistics. I have just this to say, in reference to numbers : 
that the great majority of people have always been against God 
and his Church. Said the Jews to Paul : " We desire to hear of 
thee concerning this sect, for it is every-where spoken against." The 
gentleman said there were eighty millions of professing Christians, 
all told, seventy-eight millions of whom were Pedobaptists. Twenty 
millions of Protestants, eighteen millions of whom were Pedobap- 
tists. We will strike out the Church of Rome ; for I am satisfied 
my friend is not going to call up the Church of Pome to testify for 
him in this case. I will not concede that the Roman Church is 
valid authority in this matter. We will, therefore, strike out the 
Roman, and, for the same reason, the Greek Church ; and we have 
left twenty millions of Protestants, eighteen millions of whom are Pe- 
dobaptists, according to him. I have simply to say that this whole 
statement is incorrect. I deny his statistics in toto. Now, then, he 
has to prove them. His affirmation is worth no more than my de- 
nial, until he proves it logically. Now, as to these eighteen million 
Protestants, beginning here in Kentucky, and in his own Church, 
not more than one-half of them are Pedobaptists. Shall Mr. Fitch 
count all these as friends to his cause? Certainly not. 

(Time expired.} 



106 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

When my worthy brother was in the affirmative, I complained 
that he did not proceed fast enough to suit me. I have no occasion 
to make any such complaint to-day. You will bear me witness that, 
in his last speech, he got through with infant baptism, and then 
went to discussing the mode and design of the ordinance. If I am 
not mistaken, to-morrow, when that question is before us for dis- 
cussion, I will make him just as anxious to get away from the pas- 
sage to which he has called your attention, as he is to get away from 
infant baptism to-day. 

Upon my saying, this morning, that all men were the subjects of 
baptism, my opponent wanted to know, whether infidels of every 
grade and form of belief, were subjects of baptism? I will just 
reply by inquiring, whether all men are not under obligation to be 
religious? The obligation to be religious carries along with it the 
obligation to be baptized ; and, if infidels and rationalists and bad 
men are under obligation to be religious, and are proper subjects 
of religion, they are under obligation to be baptized, and are proper 
subjects of baptism. The very kind of argument by which he ex- 
cludes infants from those households to which I have called your 
attention, will exclude every one but those who are especially 
named. My opponent comes to the conclusion that there were no 
infants in those families that I have named, because none are speci- 
fied by name. If so, then there were no adult children, because 
no adult children are mentioned and specified as adult children. 
Then it follows, that there were no servants, because none are desig- 
nated in the account. The very same kind of reasoning that ex- 
cludes infants from these families, will exclude children, of any age 
or size, and, also, servants. 

I will make the gentleman a proposition, if he will accept it, out- 
side the question. If he will commence at the south end of this 
town (or at the north end, or the east or west end), and take nine 
persons in rotation, in the order in which they live, and if there are 
not infants to be found in some of the families which he may select, 
then I will give up the position that there were infants in the fami- 
lies of the persons here specified by name. I defy him to do 
it. He may do it in this town, or in any other town, just as he 
pleases, so that they are examined in the order in which they come. 

He wants to know how I discovered the fact that Lydia had a 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 107 

family. I am sorry that he referred to her in such immodest and 
disparaging terms in his speech this morning. I have more right 
to assume that she had a family than he has to assume that she 
was unmarried, or an " old maid," as he saw fit to designate her. 
The term here translated household, means, primarily, family. It 
does not mean persons in the employ of the family, or servants. I 
will take occasion here to say, that when the Apostle, in Corinthians, 
refers to the household of Stephanus, he does not use the term that 
is used when it says these households were baptized, but uses the 
term which, according to Bagster, and other lexicographers, denotes 
servants, or employes connected with the family. If he will ex- 
amine his New Testament, he will find that the criticism which I 
here make is correct. 

But I am apprehensive that he will reprove me just here for trans- 
lating the Scriptures. I will tell him now, for his satisfaction, that 
I am not opposed to the translation of the Scriptures, but I think 
that seventy intelligent, honest, and educated men are just about 
as competent to translate the Scriptures, and translate them cor- 
rectly, as one man. When it comes to accepting the translation of 
Mr. Alexander Campbell, or Mr. H. T. Anderson, or any other man, 
or that of the scholars of King James's time, I say, let me have King 
James's translation, as the most accurate, and the least faulty. 

I am called upon to show the Scripture authority for infant bap- 
tism. It does not devolve upon me to show a positive command 
for it. I have shown that, by legislative enactment, God put infants 
into the Church. I find them there. I affirm that they are there, 
and it devolves upon my opponent to show that they have been 
excluded, or that the same legislative authority that put them in 
legislated them out. My brother's argument reminds me of an 
Irishman I once heard of. He brings forward passages to prove 
that the rite of baptism is applicable to adults, and then, by these 
passages, he excludes infants. The Irishman to whom I refer 
was charged with stealing, and he was brought before a certain 
tribunal, to be tried for the crime which it was alleged he had 
committed. It was proven, by two witnesses, that he had done the 
deed. When the testimony was gone through with, and the judge 
was about to pronounce the sentence of the law against him, he 
arose and inquired if his honor would allow him to make an ex- 
planation. The judge said: "You do not hope to upset the testi- 
mony of those two witnesses, do you?" "To be sure I do, sir." 
"They testified they saw you steal the property, and the law con- 
demns you to punishment." "But," replied the accused, "plase 
your honor, I could bring you a great many who would swear they 
never saw me do it." On the same principle, he might bring for- 
ward a thousand passages that refer to adult baptism only, but 
what do these prove in regard to infant baptism ? Nothing. 

I desire once more to call your attention to the Abrahamic cov- 



108 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

enant, in order to show you where the brother is mistaken, and 
then I will trouble you with it no more. The quotation which I 
now make will be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews, viii : 8-13 : 
" For finding fault with them he saith, Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Is- 
rael and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant 
that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the 
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued 
not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel 
after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their 
minds, and write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a 
God, and they shall be to me a people ; And they shall not teach 
every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know 
ye the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and 
their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new 
covenant, he hath made the first old." That which is here called 
the new covenant is the Gospel covenant, which is nothing more 
than the Abrahamic covenant continued and enlarged. Paul, or 
the writer of the epistle, contrasts it with the Mosaic ritual, which 
was given on Sinai. "When he makes the comparison, he calls it 
a more excellent covenant — Christ had obtained a better ministry; 
his priesthood was of a higher order than that of Aaron. It was 
after the order of Melchisedec. Paul says : "If therefore perfec- 
tion were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people re- 
ceived the ceremonial law), what further need was there, that another 
priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called 
after the order of Aaron ? For the priesthood being changed, there 
is made, of necessity, a change also of the law, or ritual." 

Here is where the brother makes a great mistake, in failing to 
draw a proper distinction between that which pertained exclusively 
to the Jewish temple-worship and the Abrahamic covenant. If he 
will draw this distinction clearly, just as St. Paul does, he will soon 
be able to extricate himself from his present confusion and difficulty. 
He will then understand that the covenant made with our father 
Abraham, and confirmed in Christ, is everlasting, and unchanging 
in its principles. This confirmation of it in, or by, Christ occasioned 
Paul to call it a new covenant. 

He wants to know how God can ordain praise out of the mouths 
of babes and sucklings. He certainly will not deny that such a 
thing is possible. The Psalmist, under the inspiring influence of 
the Holy Spirit, declares that "out of the mouths of babes and 
sucklings, thou hast ordained praise." If he desires further infor- 
mation as to what infants can do, I refer him to the Bible, from 
which he may learn that they are capable of entering into covenant 
with God. " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 109 

God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, 
with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy 
stranger that is within thy carap, from the hewer of thy wood unto 
the drawer of thy water ; that thou shouldest enter into covenant 
with the Lord thy God."— Deut. xxix: 10, 11, 12. These ''little 
ones" entered into this covenant with the Lord God exactly as the 
heads of tribes, elders, officers, husbands, and wives did. Again: 
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The 
Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us 
who are all of us alive here this day." This language was ad- 
dressed by Moses to the children of Israel, when they stood upon 
the borders of the land of Canaan. Forty years had almost elapsed 
since they were at Horeb, a fact which must be taken into consid- 
eration, and a great number of them were infants at that time ; and 
there is where the Lord made the covenant with all of them. 

I venture to assert here, and, if I had the time at my disposal, 
I could easily prove the assertion from the Word of God, that God 
never brought nations or individuals into covenant with him- 
self, at any time, or under any circumstances, and excluded their 
children from the covenant. Jesus Christ once, addressing Peter, 
asked him if he loved him. The response was, " Thou knowest that 
I love thee." Christ said, "Feed my sheep." Again he asked 
him, "Lovest thou me?" and Peter again replied, "Lord, thou 
knowest that I love thee." Jesus said, "Feed my lambs." Peter 
was the shepherd of Jesus Christ, and every one admits that the 
Church is the fold of Jesus Christ, into which the sheep are to be 
gathered. What think ye Christ will think of that shepherd, when 
he finds that he is inclosing the sheep in the fold, and leaving the 
lambs outside, exposed to the stormy blasts, and the ravenous beasts 
of prey that are stealthily approaching to devour them? Is it pos- 
sible — is it probable — that Jesus Christ would proceed in this way? 
Does not the moral condition of infants, and their interest in the 
atonement of Jesus Christ, entitle them to receive baptism, by which 
their condition and interest is indicated, at the hands of the Church ? 
Do they not stand in the same relation to Jesus Christ, and his re- 
demption, and to the spiritual kingdom of our God, as converted 
persons do, especially when Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom 
of God"? 

I have been wondering, ever since this debate commenced, 
how it was that my worthy friend and brother could conceive 
the idea that his Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost. 
But, this morning, he explained the mystery, and now I can under- 
stand it, for he dated our Church back almost to the same time. 
You remember that he told you that the son-in-law of the jailer was 
not a one-legged shoemaker, nor a one-eyed shoemaker, but a 
Methodist preacher. This is the most wonderful discovery I ever 
heard of. I do n't want to hear him talk any more about our 



110 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

"smart babies," when he can make such a wonderful discovery as 
that. 

I believe I have noticed about all the points he presented in his 
speech that are worthy of a reply, and I accordingly. proceed to call 
your attention to other arguments, to prove that infant baptism is 
not an innovation, but sanctioned by divine authority. I venture to 
say that if it is an innovation, and if it was foisted upon the Church, 
this occurred in the days of the Apostles, and they are chargeable 
with the wrong, if there is any wrong in it. It is an admitted fact, 
that infant baptism is practiced throughout the Christian world — 
that an overwhelming majority of the Christian world not only be- 
lieve the practice to be divinely authorized, but it is generally 
practiced among them, and I affirm that those who think for them- 
selves, and do not suffer themselves to be misled by the sophistries 
of religious teachers, who were baptized in infancy, have just as good 
a conscience in regard to the matter as my worthy brother or any 
one else has. I do not doubt the validity of my own baptism, for 
a single moment, and I would not be re-baptized for the world. 
My conscience bears me testimony that my parents did right when, 
in obedience to the divine law, they brought me into covenant re- 
lationship with God. 

The gentleman intimated in his speech this morning, that we 
exercise a sort of clerical tyranny over infants, because we baptize 
them ; and said if he believed that all persons were subjects of bap- 
tism, he would station himself in the street and lay hold upon every 
sinner as he passed, and drag him to some pond, or river, and dip 
him into Jesus Christ. He is more tyrannical than we Pedobaptists, 
and why ? Because in choosing for the infant I only do that which 
God has authorized parents to do. There is a great deal of objection 
made just here. Does not God command children to obey their 
parents ? He gives parents entire authority over their children. 
The law of man also invests them with authority to choose for their 
children. It accords with the usages and customs of society also, 
and when we baptize our children, we only do what God, and the 
laws of man, and the customs of society every-where, fully sanction. 

But how does my brother do ? He gets up to plead for Christian 
union upon the basis of the Bible ; and he will contend that immer- 
sion, and immersion only, is baptism, and that immersion is bap- 
tism because it is immersion ; and until God Almighty reconstructs 
my mind, or offers me more testimony than is contained in the Bible, I 
can never believe that immersion is baptism as he believes it is. If 
I go to him and propose to unite with him upon the basis of the 
Bible, will he allow me to exercise my own judgment, and follow 
the dictates of my own conscience, and examine the Bible, and 
decide for myself? No, sir; he will not. He takes the Bible away 
from me, and says I must be dipped, or not baptized at all. The 
only difference between his practice, and my theory and practice is, 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. Ill 

I choose for the child when it is incompetent to choose for itself, 
and he wants to choose for me when I claim to be competent to 
choose for myself. 

Infant baptism is in the world. It is practiced by an overwhelm- 
ing majority of the Christian population of the world. I call upon 
my worthy brother to show that it did not originate with the apos- 
tles in these household baptisms, to which I have called your atten- 
tion ; and if it is an innovation, when and by whom was it 
introduced into the world ? If he will show that fact, then I will 
join with him in the hue and cry, and in hunting down, and cover- 
ing with obloquy, the name of the man who thus foisted upon the 
Church and the world this innovation. I will help to overwhelm 
his name with the public disapprobation. Many gigantic intellects 
have turned their attention to this subject ; the Carsons, the Camp- 
bells, and others ; all the learned immersionists of the world have 
investigated the subject with zeal and assiduity ; yet they have failed 
to find the innovator, and to heap upon him that obloquy which he 
deserves. 

We w T ill now appeal to the Christian Fathers, and see what testi- 
mony from them can be brought to bear upon this subject. To- 
morrow he will appeal to these same Fathers, to prove that baptism 
is for the remission of past sins. I do not simply wish to give their 
opinions. I want to show you the different use I make of them 
from what he makes of them. I bring them forward as witnesses 
to testify to facts, and to show what were the practices of the 
churches, or the religious bodies in those days ; and he brings them 
forward for the purpose of. giving their opinions, and rendering 
their decisions upon the doctrines of the Bible. There is quite a 
difference between us in this respect. A man may be competent 
to testify as to a fact, and yet his opinion with reference to that 
fact may be exceedingly fallible, and erroneous. I do not call for 
their opinions with reference to infant baptism or adult baptism, or 
with reference to the action of baptism, or the design of baptism ; but 
I simply call upon them in order that I may hear their testimony 
as to the rites that were then practiced in the Christian Church. 

The first writer to whom I shall call your attention is Justin Martyr, 
w r ho, in his apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, uses the follow- 
ing language: "Several persons among us, of sixty and seventy 
years old, of both sexes, who were made disciples to Christ, in, or 
from their childhood, do continue uncorrupted." Justin wrote but 
ninety years after St. Matthew, who wrote his gospel for the use of 
the Hebrew believers in their own tongue, about five years after 
the ascension of Christ, that is A. D. 41. They who were seventy 
years old when Justin wrote, must have been discipled to Christ in 
childhood ; and as there is no way of discipling to Christ but by 
baptism, they must have been baptized in infancy, during the very 
days of the apostles, and probably by the apostles themselves. Or 



112 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

at least the apostles knew it and approved it. The testimony of 
Justin is conclusive on this subject. 

My friend Brooks undertakes to say that the apostles never bap- 
tized any children. Irenseus, who lived in the year of our Lord 
ninety-seven, who is just as pious, without saying any thing to the 
detriment of my brother's piety, and also just as learned, and just 
as honest, plainly affirms that "the Church learned from the apos- 
tles to baptize children." In the book against heretics, he writes as 
follows : "He (Jesus Christ) came to save all persons by himself 1 — all, 
I say, who are regenerated by him unto God, infants and little ones 
and children, and young men, and old men." 

It becomes necessary for me to tell you that this term "regenerate" 
is used by him as synonymous with baptism. They frequently des- 
ignated the thing which baptism signifies, by using the word baptism 
itself. Because it signifies cleansing, they call baptism itself regen- 
eration. When he says these persons were regenerated by God, he 
simply means they were baptized, infants, little ones and children. 
That is, when they were regenerated unto God, they were baptized 
unto God. 

{Time Expired.) 



MR. BROOKS^ THIRD REPLY. 113 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend, in his last speech, has given up the question, so far as 
the Scriptures bear upon it, and he has gone out among the old 
Latin and Greek Fathers, to prove that infant baptism is authorized 
by the word of God. I really feel sorry for my friend this evening; 
he is certainly hard pressed. But, strange to say, the passages he 
reads from the Fathers say nothing about infant baptism. It is the 
same way with the Scriptures. Justin Martyr speaks of a number 
of persons that were made Christians from their childhood. Now, my 
brother who sits there [pointing to Gen. Gano], when he was a boy 
ten years of age confessed his faith in Christ. From childhood he 
was a disciple of Christ in the eyes of the world, and of the Invis- 
ible One. Men may be disciples from childhood, and still not be 
infants when baptized. That is just what my friend has to prove, 
and which he has failed to do. In the passage from Irenaeus, my 
friend says that the term regeneration means baptism. I would like 
to understand how he knows that. The only way to reach a con- 
clusion like that is to arrive at the usage of the word in the writings 
of Irenaeus. The term regeneration afterward became synonymous 
with baptism. But was this the meaning of the term at the time it 
was used by Irenaeus? The usage of words changes very slowly, a 
new usage gradually growing into custom. But the question is, 
whether Irenaeus used it in this sense. 

I want to read a passage or two from higher authority on this 
subject. Dr. Doddridge says of this quotation: "We have only 
a Latin translation of this work, and some critics have supposed 
this passage spurious ; or, allowing it to be genuine, it will not be 
granted that to be regenerate, always, in his writings, signifies bap- 
tized." — DodcL, Miscel. Works, p. 493. 

President Seers says - : '• Every thing turns upon the meaning of 
the word renascuntur. If it means they were regenerated, then 
it has nothing to do with our subject If it means they were bap- 
tized, then it proves the existence of infant baptism in the time of 
Irenaeus. This question can not be settled, as many have thought, 
by an appeal to later writers : for the idea of baptismal regenera- 
tion was of gradual growth, and in every successive period, from 
the apostles to the Middle Ages, words were changed in their mean- 
ing to correspond with the change of ideas. The scholastic writers 
10 



114 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

attach more to the word than Chrysostom and Gregory, and these 
more than Irenseus and Justin Martyr." 

Again: "The phrase 'regenerated through Christ unto God,' if 
it mean the general ' recovery of men through Christ's incarnation 
and redemption,' has numerous parallels in the writings of Irenseus ; 
if it mean ' baptized through Christ unto God,' it has no parallel — 
absolutely none." 

Again : " ' Regeneration,' standing alone, without any such words 
as 'baptism' or 'bath' prefixed, and governing it in the genitive, 
never means baptism in Irenceus." — See Sinton's Hist, of Bap., p. 242. 

So far as this question is concerned, Tertullian, at the close of 
the second century, is the first to mention infant baptism ; and he 
opposes it. Is it not a little strange, if infant baptism was intro- 
duced into the Primitive Church by the apostles, that Tertullian, 
who lived seventy-five years after the last of these died, should 
stand up to denounce it and reject it? No, my friends, the truth 
is, that infant baptism in his day had but begun to creep into the 
Church, just as the cramming of the sacrament down the throats 
of little infants, and marking them with the sign of the cross, crept 
in at the same time. There is nothing to show that the Fathers 
approved of infant baptism, though they have approved of many 
other things equally as sinful. So my friend gets no comfort from 
the Fathers. 

In the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, Christ says to his disciples : 
"Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as 
little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 

[By the way, "Except ye be converted." My friend told us yes- 
terday the Jews were in the kingdom of heaven ; but here we find 
that the very apostles of Christ are not in the kingdom ; no, not 
even converted up to this time]. 

" Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child, 
the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven." 

Now, these disciples have just asked, "Who is the greatest in the 
kingdom of heaven?" and Christ says, "Except ye be converted, 
and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven." Does he mean, "except ye become little infants in 
size?" No. In what respect, then? "Except ye be converted 
and become as little children." Let us seer "Whosoever, there- 
fore, shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in 
the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little 
child in my name, receiveth me." 

What kind of a little child ? Why, one of these that has hum- 
bled himself. 

" But whoso shall offend one of these little ones, which believe 
in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about 
his neck, and that he were drowned in the depths of the sea." 

These are the children that my friend talks about to-day, and 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY. ' 115 

we are perfectly willing to receive them into the Church, since they 
are capable of believing and humbling themselves. 

He called my attention to Mark x: 15: "Whosoever shall not 
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter 
therein." I desire to ask him how a little child receives the king- 
dom ? He answers : " In baptism." Well, then, if these disciples 
receive not the kingdom, as this little infant, they shall not enter 
therein. How, then, do infants receive the kingdom in baptism? 
It is my opinion they do it very frequently amid kicks, and squalls, 
and screams, and I suppose my friend would like to have us re- 
ceive it in the same way. 

He says all are under obligations to be religious, and hence un- 
der obligation to be baptized. Does the gentleman mean that we 
must be baptized, whether we have faith or not. I admit that 
every man is. under obligations to be pious ; but only a certain class 
of men — they that believe the Gospel, and no other — are under 
obligations to be baptized. There is not a Pagan on earth, who has 
not heard the Gospel, who is under any obligation to be baptized. 
No man is under obligation to obey a law until he has heard it ; and 
infants can not hear the law. 

My friend, told us in his last speech, that oikos, "household," 
means " family," only, and not " employes." I shall take the privi- 
lege of reading the definition of this word, as given by Groves. He 
defines it thus: "A house, mansion, dwelling, abode; a house of 
God, temple; a palace, court; an apartment; a home; a family, 
household ; lineage, descent; property, substance." 

My friend must be careful how he makes definitions of Greek 
words. He says he does not want to receive a translation made by 
one man. I will invite his attention to the one made by the Bible 
Union. Now, this [holding up the common version] is a good 
translation ; there are a good many errors in it — the twenty-four 
thousand I mentioned — but only a few of them affect the sense in 
any way. My objection to my friend is, that he constantly trans- 
lates when King James does not suit him, and yet objects to a 
faithful revision. 

He quoted: "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast 
thou ordained strength" (Ps. viii : 2), and Christ's instruction to 
Peter to feed the lambs of the flock, as proofs of his proposition. 

Do you suppose the Savior meant that the lambs should be fed 
by a little water sprinkled into their faces? The Lord says: "Feed 
my lambs." He sprinkles theinfants ; therefore, to sprinkle is to feed. 
That is the logic. Now, what does my friend do? Pie certainly 
neither sprinkles nor pours. He simply wets his fingers, and moist- 
ens the infant's forehead. That is the way he feeds the lambs. 

He told us that he was greatly rejoiced to find that a Methodist 
preacher had been discovered at Thyatira, away back in the days 
of the apostles. No doubt of it. He has been trying a long time 



116 BE00K9 AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to get "back to that period. But I will tell him a little bit of his- 
tory he does not seem to be aware of. You remember the four hun- 
dred prophets upou the top of Mount Carmel — what noise and 
confusion accompanied their worship ! Now, I can not conceive 
to what class of preachers they belonged, unless to Methodist 
preachers; for Methodist preachers are characterized for more noise 
and confusion than any other class of preachers living. That was, 
I suppose, a Methodist camp-meeting, and those prophets were 
Methodist preachers, trying to wake up their God, that he might 
bless them in their dire extremity. 

He says that fathers have a right to choose the occasion and mode 
of baptism for their children ; that they have authority to choose 
in this matter for their children. I have only this to say, that if he 
can find a passage in all this book authorizing parents to do this, 
then I promise to sprinkle or baptize every infant in this town that 
may be brought to me. Think of it for a moment. The great God 
sends out his apostles to the nations of the earth, saying: "Go ye 
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature ; and he 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
not shall be damned." And yet my friend tells us that the father 
must choose the act for the child. If so, it has not the shadow of 
obedience about it. It is very easy to assert a thing when there is 
nobody present to contradict it: but not so to-day. I did make a 
lapsus lingucE, this morning, in reference to Lydia. My friend ought 
to have known that it was a slip of the tongue. I trust I am just 
as modest a man as he is. 

Again : In regard to the covenants, my friend discoursed much 
upon the assertion that there was but one covenant, and attempted 
to ridicule the argument I made to show that there was a plurality of 
covenants. I wonder if he ever read what the Apostle says to the 
Romans upon this subject: " Who are the Israelites; to whom per- 
taineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- 
ing of the law, and the services of God and the promises." — Rom. 
ix: 4. Is that one, or more? My friend has never discovered 
more than one covenant, and yet the Apostle himself says, to the 
Jews belonged the covenants. 

And again : He changed the order in which I had presented the 
four blessings promised to Abraham, and read the fourth before the 
second and third. I called attention to the fourth, and expressly 
said that in this we were interested; but the fact that Abraham 
has a great name does not interest you or I; and that he was to 
become a great nation, is nothing to us. Now, that Abraham ha*, 
indeed, a spiritual seed among all nations is true; but my friend 
must recollect, that he is the father of those only who believe in 
Christ. They are children of Abraham by faith, and not by cir- 
cumcision or infant baptism. This is not the way they became 
children of Abraham. The Jews are his children, according to the 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY. 117 

fle«h ; but all Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are his children 
by faith in Christ. 

He says I misrepresented him, yesterday, with regard to the king- 
dom and the Church. I certainly did not intend to misrepresent 
him. In the conclusion of his argument, yesterday, you will re- 
member how he toiled to show us that God had a kingdom, even in 
the days of Adam ; that there were preachers then, and that they 
preached the Gospel in its fullness. I supposed that he meant to 
teach, that the Lord had a Church in that day; and, to save me, I 
can not see how he can get away from this conclusion. The Church 
is frequently called, in the New Testament, the "Church of God." 
It is also called the "kingdom of God," the "body of Christ," and 
the "kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now, what constitutes 
the Church and the kingdom? Christ is the king, the saints are 
the subjects, the world is the territory, and the law that went forth 
from Zion is the constitution of that kingdom. All that are in the 
Church of God are in the kingdom of Christ. When the Savior said, 
that " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not 
enter the kingdom of God," he meant that except he be born of 
water and of the Spirit he can not enter the Church of God. I 
wonder if my friend does not believe that? I want to quote a single 
passage from the book he esteems above all others — The Discipline : 

"Dearly beloved : Forasmuch as all men are conceived and born 
in sin (and that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and they that are 
in the flesh can not please God, but live in sin, committing many 
actual transgressions), and that our Savior, Christ, saith : 'Except a 
man be born of water and of the Spirit he can not enter the king- 
dom of God ' — [I want to pause here to congratulate my Methodist 
friends around me. I am glad to see that their Discipline is improv- 
ing from year to year. In the correspondence, I was pretty severely 
criticised for saying the Methodists had abandoned some of their 
old landmarks. The old Discipline read: Christ saith 'None can 
enter into the kingdom of God,' etc. They, of course, saw that 
would not do ; for Christ never said such a thing. I am glad you 
have amended your Discipline. I hope you will keep on, my friends, 
and, when you get to the end, burn the little thing, and take the 
word of God. But to return :] except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit he can not enter into the kingdom of God. I beseech 
you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that which 
by nature he can not have; that he may be baptized with water and 
the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church, and be 
made a lively member of the same." 

Now, what is the difference, in the light of the Discipline? By 
baptism, he comes into the Church, and by baptism, he comes into 
the kingdom ; and yet, my friend labors to show you that the 
Church and the kingdom are not one. If he would take the word 



118 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of God alone, he would get out of the mists that envelope him, and 
might make an argument to-day that would not overturn what he 
said yesterday. He contradicts himself, and tramples upon the 
word of God. 

The Church, then, in the estimation of the Discipline, and in the 
estimation of all men who have ever studied this matter — and 
the kingdom of God are one thing. I am not talking now about 
the invisible Church. He may tell you that there is a visible 
and an invisible Church; but where do you find any authority 
for your invisible Church? Will the invisible Church ever con- 
vert* any body? The Savior said his disciples should walk in the 
truth, and let their light shine out, that the Gentiles might see 
their works, and glorify God. I wonder where this invisible Church 
lets its light shine? Ah, this is one of those mists my friend has 
raised, amid which to hide himself from the light of the word of God. 
There is no such thing known to the oracles of the living God. 

He says that under the old economy, there was a circumcision 
of the heart, and also of the flesh. Well, grant it. I want to know, 
then, whether these infants were circumcised in the heart, or in the 
flesh? He can not show that one single infant was ever circumcised 
in the heart. Now, does baptism come in place of the circumcision 
of the heart, or of the flesh? Will he tell us that it comes in place 
of the circumcision of the heart? Then we have water regenera- 
tion, in its full essence, in the world, as taught by my friend and 
his Church. Baptism, the circumcision of the heart of an uncon- 
scious infant? No, my friends ; the circumcision of the heart is by 
belief in God and his Son, Jesus Christ, and, therefore, infants can 
not be circumcised in heart. There is a great deal of talk on this 
subject that amounts to nothing. 

But again: if infants, as he tells us, are circumcised by baptism, 
as coming in place of circumcision, how does he explain the fact 
that the Lord Jesus Christ and all the Jews were circumcised be- 
fore being baptized? If that circumcision was in the heart, of course 
those infants that received it, under that economy, were circumcised 
in the heart; but, notwithstanding \}us, these circumcised infants 
had to be circumcised again, by baptism, after they grew up into 
life. The Savior, and all the Jews, then, have been twice circum- 
cised in heart. The very idea is supremely ridiculous. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 119 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

You will remember that Mr. Brooks questioned the accuracy of 
my statistics, and called upon me to prove the correctness of my 
statement. You will also remember that I did not propose to give 
net figures, but I prefixed the word "about" to the numbers that I 
presented. I stated that there were about eighty millions professed 
Christians in the world, and twenty millions professed Protestants, 
and about two millions immersionists. I wish just to call his at- 
tention to Prof. Schem's "Ecclesiastical Almanac" for 1868. The 
total number of all the Baptists given there is 2,122,539. The aggre- 
gate numbers of which I spoke are found upon page 64, of Prof. 
Alexander J. Schem's "Ecclesiastical Almanac" for the year 1868. 

I will now proceed with the testimony of the Fathers, with re- 
gard to the practice of infant baptism. My brother denied that 
the term "regeneration," as it occurs in the quotation which I made 
from Irenseus, means baptism. If I am not greatly mistaken, Alex- 
ander Campbell, in his debate with Dr. Rice, of the Presbyterian 
Church, admitted that Irenseus, and other Fathers, used the terms 
"baptism" and "regeneration" interchangeably. Dr. Wall, in his 
" History of Infant Baptism," whose authority is as good as that of 
any other man who has ever written on the subject, says that Clem- 
ent speaks of infant baptism as commonly practiced in the 
Churches of Alexandria, and takes it for granted that the apostles 
baptized infants. He also tells us that regeneration means bap- 
tism, and thus determines the use of the word which Irenseus has ap- 
plied to infants. That is the testimony of Dr. Wall, as given in 
his " History of Infant Baptism," with regard to the usage of this 
word as found in 'the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers. 
But if he denies that they are used interchangeably, I warn him 
not to use this passage to-morrow, when he undertakes to prove 
that baptism is for the remission of sins. 

We call your attention, in the next place, to the testimony of 
Tertullian, and he told you that this Father opposed infant baptism, 
and that he opposed it upon the ground that it was just being in- 
troduced into the Church. I would like to have my good brother 
substantiate what he has affirmed. Tertullian was, I have no 
doubt, a pious man, and a learned man ; but, like some learned 
men of the present day, he was a fanatic. He advocated the 
theory that baptism washed away all sins committed previous to 



120 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

the act. He not only advised the delaying of infant baptism, 
but that widows and young persons, who were exposed to peculiar 
temptations, ought to defer it as long as they could with safety. 
If his doctrine was true with reference to the remission of sins in 
the act of baptism, and upon baptism as a condition of pardon, 
then he was consistent — far more consistent than my good brother 
is in his practices, for he believes and teaches that all sins com- 
mitted previous to the act of baptism, are remitted when that act is 
performed, if faith and repentance are joined with it. 

Then why not be consistent, like Tertullian, and advocate the 
delay of baptism to as late a period as practicable, and then, when 
the person is about to drop into the jaws of death, baptize him, and 
send him through with a clear account? It might be much better 
for him, for, like Tertullian, Mr. Brooks does not believe the doc- 
trine of Christian perfection, and those whom he baptizes may live 
forty or fifty years after baptism, during which time many sins are 
committed, which must be pardoned upon some other condition be- 
fore they can be saved in heaven ; and these, according to the theory 
of my friend, might all be remitted by baptism, if they had not 
been baptized before. It was upon this ground that Tertullian 
opposed infant baptism. He did not deny the right of infants to 
baptism, for, in cases of extreme feebleness, when there was a prob- 
ability of death, he taught that they ought to be baptized ; but not 
otherwise. In other regards, he advocated delay in the matter. 
He says: "But they whose duty it is to administer baptism are to 
know that it must not be given rashly. Give to every one that 
asketh thee, has its proper subject, and relates to alms-giving ; but 
that command is to be here considered : Give not that which is 
holy unto dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine. And that 
command also : Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be par- 
taker of other men's faults. Therefore, according to every one's 
condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of bap- 
tism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. 
For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into 
danger? Because they may either fail of their promise by death, 
or they may be mistaken by a child's proving of wicked disposi- 
tion. What need their guiltless age make such haste to the for- 
giveness of sins?" I thought that I could refer at once to the place 
in which he says that infants ought to be baptized, in ca«es of ex- 
treme feebleuess, or where there is danger of immediate death, but 
have not succeeded in finding it. I will find it, however, if the 
gentleman doubts my ability to do so. 

Mr. Brooks. — " I would like to see the passage." 

Mr. Fitch — " Well, sir, I will find it for you." 

Your attention is called, in the next place, to Origen, the most 
learned of the Fathers, who had a most worthy parentage; his 
father and grandfather were Christians, and dated their conversion 



ME. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 121 

back to apostolic times. He traveled extensively through many 
countries, for the purpose of acquiring information of our Lord and 
his doctrine, and the conclusion of all his researches is: "The 
Church received from the apostles the injunction, or tradition, to give 
baptism even to infants, according to the saying of our Lord con- 
cerning infants, 'And thou wast an infant when thou wast baptized.' 
Their angels do always behold the face of my father who is in 
heaven." This is the testimony of Origen. Here he affirms that 
the Church received, from the apostles themselves, the injunction, 
or tradition, to give baptism even to infants. In the year one 
hundred and fifty, there was a council assembled, of sixty-six pious 
and learned bishops, and one Fidus, an African bishop, wrote to this 
council, inquiring whether it would not be better to delay the bap- 
tism of infants till the eighth day after their birth, than to baptize 
them before that time. I will read to you that part of their reply 
to the letter of Fidus which relates to the baptism of infants: "So 
far as it pertains to the case of infants, whom you think ought not 
to be baptized within the seccnd or third day from their birth ; and 
that the ancient law of circumcision should be observed, so that 
none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after 
birth ; it seemed to all our council far otherwise. For as to what 
you proposed to be done, there was not one of your opinion. But 
on the contrary, it was our unanimous decision that the grace and 
mercy of God should not be denied to any as soon as born." Now, 
I would inquire if you suppose that a council of sixty-six bishops 
were not competent to know what was the practice of the Church at 
that time? Suppose a council of sixty-six of the most learned men 
of the " Christian ministry " was assembled to-day in the town of 
Winchester ; do you think that they would not be able to give the his- 
tory of the Church for the last one hundred and fifty years? Do 
you suppose these professors, these masters of art, and so on, are not 
acquainted with the history of the Church for the last one hundred 
and fifty years? Do you suppose they would not be able to tell 
whether infant baptism was an innovation or not, if it had been in- 
troduced within the past century? Do you suppose they would not 
be able to tell whether it was an innovation even in the Methodist 
Church? Most certainly they would, with all their zeal for the 
cause of God and learning, investigate these matters fully. 

How unreasonable it is to suppose that this council of sixty-six 
Christian bishops and ministers, of integrity, of piety, of learning, 
of zeal for the Church, and for the glory of God, should not under- 
stand the question fully. Some of them had traveled extensively, 
and acquainted themselves with Christianity; with Christian writers, 
and with Christian ministers, in almost all the cities and countries 
of the old world ; is it reasonable that they would not have known 
that infant baptism was an innovation, if such had been the fact? 
Or is it reasonable to suppose that they would have winked at it, 
11 



122 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

and received it as divinely authorized, when there was no divine 
authority for it? What think ye upon this subject? They unques- 
tionably understood the history of their Church, and they unques- 
tionably, with all their zeal for the glory of the Church, and for the 
purity of Christian doctrine, would have rejected with scorn and 
contempt, and condemned, as it deserved, the inquiry of this bishop, 
in regard to infant baptism, if it had not been authorized by the au- 
thority of the apostles. No, sir ; the only question that this man 
wished to have decided, the only question which this council at- 
tempted to decide was, that it was not necessary to delay the bap- 
tism of infants until the eighth day, because circumcision was not 
performed until that day. That was the testimony of the Fathers 
on down to the beginning of the fourth century. No man present 
will deny that infant baptism has been practiced ever since the 
beginning of the fourth century. 

Alexander Campbell himself, in his debate with Dr. Rice, which 
occurred several years ago, admitted that infant baptism was at 
least fifteen hundred years old. No man places the beginning of it 
so late as the fourth century. This is the testimony of these men 
with reference to this fact. How is it with reference to infant com- 
munion? That was practiced in the Romish Church during the 
dark ages. We can name the very time when it was introduced as 
an innovation ; and we can show when and how, and under what 
circumstances it originated. But no man upon whom the sun shines, 
can show when it was that infant baptism commenced. These facts, 
taken in connection with the household baptisms spoken of in the 
New Testament, and with the fact, that stands without contradic- 
tion, that God, by positive enactment, placed children within the 
Church, and made them parties to the covenant which he gave to 
his people, makes the evidence conclusive of the fact, that infant 
baptism is authorized by the word of God ; that it originated with 
the apostles, and that it could not have originated at any subsequent 
time. 

Did you know that there was not a sect or denomination that 
denied infant baptism until the eleventh century. There was a man 
who lived about this time, who, of all others, ought to have denied its 
divine or scriptural authority, and proved that it was an innova- 
tion. Pelagius denied the depravity of the human heart, and he 
undertook to prove that infants were as pure and spotless as angels. 
Saint Augustine had a controversy with him, and inquired of him 
why he baptized infants, if they were not depraved. And some of 
the enemies of religion went so far as to say that Pelagius denied 
infant baptism because he denied infant depravity. But Pelagius 
was indignant at the charge w 7 hich the Church brought against him, 
and says : "Men do slander me when they say I deny infant bap- 
tism ; " and he affirms that he never heard of any sect, or of any 
man of any intelligence, who denied infant baptism. If he could 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 123 

have proven infant baptism to be an innovation, he would have had 
the strongest argument against the doctrine of infant depravity re- 
moved out of the way. But he could not show that it was an in- 
novation, and he did not attempt to do it. 

The first sect that ever denied infant baptism were the followers 
of Peter Bruis, which arose in the eleventh or twelfth century. 
Why did they oppose it? Not upon the ground that these good 
brethren object to it. They took the position that since Jesus Christ 
had said " He that believeth not shall be damned," that all who died 
in infancy were damned, and there was no use in giving them the 
sign of regeneration, that which indicated their sanctification and 
salvation, when there was no salvation for them. They denied the 
doctrine of infant baptism upon the idea, the absurd and unscrip- 
tural supposition, that infants were damned if they died in infancy, 
because they were incapable of believing, and they understood that 
all who believed not should be damned. Not until the fifteenth 
century, did any religious denomination deny the right of infants 
to baptism, upon the same grounds as those who object to it now 
base their opposition. 

The Baptist Church originated in Germany. For fifteen hundred 
years, then, there was no sect of any importance or responsibility, 
that denied infant baptism upon the grounds that are taken by im- 
mersionists at this time. The sect that originated in the twelfth cen- 
tury objected upon other grounds. From the eleventh century back 
to the time when the apostles preached the unsearchable riches of 
Christ, and baptized the households and families of those who be- 
lieved in Jesus as the Christ, there was no man who had any respect 
for his reputation as a man of intelligence, or of any learning, who 
presumed to deny the right of infants to baptism. Every Father 
who has written upon this subject, whose works I have consulted, 
agrees substantially with what I have stated. If infant baptism 
was an innovation, all these good, great and learned men were 
mistaken with reference to the facts that existed ; and will not my 
kind brother, and the rest of his brethren present, and the learned 
immersionists, wherever they are, show when the thing was intro- 
duced, and then we will abandon the practice ? 

As long as the facts in this case remain as they are, as long as 
the New Testament holds out as an example to us the custom of 
household or family baptism, as long as the Abraham ic covenant 
stands unrepealed, distinct, and separate from the Mosaic ritual 
which was given upon Sinai, we feel warranted in the practice of 
infant baptism and infant church-membership. We have shown 
that God put them into the Church by positive law, and that law 
continues in full force until repealed ; and my opponent has signally 
failed to show that it was ever repealed ; neither has he been able 
to show where Christ or any of his apostles restricted the initiatory 
rite of God's Church to adults. We present these facts for your 



124 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

consideration, for upon them we base our practice, and feel that we 
are authorized in it by Almighty God, and that we have the sanc- 
tion of Heaven upon our teachings in this case. The Methodist 
Church is only about a century old, yet it has extended its bounda- 
ries over all the land, and its membership amounts to millions. 

God has blessed us, and we do not think that He would so gra- 
ciously favor us in this manner if we were so much in the wrong as 
we are accused of being by our opponents. But my brother still 
continues to misrepresent me. He inquired whether those infants, 
those lambs that Peter was commanded to feed, were to be fed 
by dashing a little water in their faces? Not at all. They are 
to be brought by baptism into the fold, which is the Church, and 
then to be fed. He does not say feed the sheep and the lambs out 
of the fold. 

I wish once more to call your attention to the position that my 
opponent assumed with regard to the universal obligation of bap- 
tism. I take the position that the doctrine of universal baptism 
carries along with it the idea of universal church-membership. 
He said that he was willing to admit that all men were under obliga- 
tion to be religious, but not to be baptized, because they did not all 
happen to have faith. Yet they are just as much under obligation 
to have faith as to be religious. Is not faith a part of religion ? Is 
not baptism a part of religion ? The very fact that they are under 
obligation to be religious brings them under obligations to believe 
and be baptized. The doctrine of universal baptism, of the obli- 
gation of men, women, and children to submit to the authority of 
Christ, and to be brought into covenant relationship with God, is 
the doctrine contained in the commission, is the doctrine of univer- 
sal church-membership, and it illustrates to us the justice of the 
divine economy which would be trammeled by such a harsh and 
unvarying rule as that prevailing in my brother's church. We do 
not object to universal church-membership. We believe in the 
right of every one, who is not opposed to Christ, being with Christ, 
for He says: " He that is not for me is against me." Infants are 
not against Christ, consequently they must be numbered with his 
children, and they are his children. 

My good brother will ask " What good does it do?" It did me a 
great amount of good. The simple fact that I was taught that I 
was a church member, restrained me in early life. What good did 
circumcision do the Jewish children? Every objection that my 
opponent urges against infant baptism militates with equal force 
against infant circumcision, against the authority and the legislative 
enactments of God himself. He inquired of me whether a child 
was circumcised in the flesh merely, or in the heart. Were not all 
the Jews circumcised in infancy in the flesh? As they attained to 
years of accountability, they were by faith and obedience brought 
to experience a change of heart indicated by their circumcision ; so 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 125 

the person who was baptized in infancy may, when sufficiently old, 
ratify the act of his parents, and obtain, by faith and obedience, 
that which his baptism signifies ; and he is a member of the 
household of God. They may take upon themselves the name 
Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, or any other they choose, but if 
they did not assume any denominational name, they would still be- 
long to the Church of God. 

(Time Expired.) 



126 BR00K8 AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH REPLY, ON THE SECOND 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The gentleman quoted from Dr. Wall, but you must remember 
that Dr. Wall was himself a Pedobaptist ; and even when the state- 
ment is made, it amounts only to this: That Tertullian not only 
advised that the baptism of infants be postponed, but that others 
also postpone their baptism. This last has nothing to do with this 
discussion. My friend quoted Dr. Wall to offset the quotation I 
made from Dr. Doddridge, about the meaning of the word regener- 
ation in Irenseus. Dr. Wall is a Pedobaptist set for the defense of 
infant baptism, and we are not disposed to let his testimony over- 
rule that of Dr. Doddridge. I quoted from one of the leaders of 
his own party, and he brings in one of his own brethren to rebut 
his testimony. 

But again : Tertullian says, in reference to this subject (I propose 
to be very brief; I shall read but one passage from Tertullian); he 
says, respecting children: "They just know how to ask for salva- 
tion." And again, in reply to the argument based on what Jesus 
said, "Suffer little children to come unto me," he observes: "Let 
them come, and let them be instructed when they come ; and when 
they understand Christianity, let them profess themselves Chris- 
tians." "It is evident, therefore" [says Mr. Hinton, the author 
from whom I read], " that the children referred to were capable of 
' coming/ and when come, of being ' instructed.' " — See Hinton on 
Baptism, p. 249. 

Mr. Fitch invited our attention to the Council of Carthage, to 
show that infant baptism was commonly received in the middle of 
the second century. It is true that, during the sitting of this coun- 
cil, Fidus, a country bishop, wrote to Cyprian, who presided over 
the council, making inquiry upon the question of infant baptism. 
But my friend only missed it one hundred years, as to the time 
of this council. This body did not convene until the middle of the 
third, instead of the second century. He succeeds in quoting the 
Fathers about as well as he does the Scriptures. 

My friend has failed to adduce a single passage to show that a 
word was said on that subject by Christian writers, for two hundred 
years after Christ. I have nothing under the heavens to add ou 
that subject. Is it not a little astonishing, that, after laboring to 
show that infant baptism is authorized by the word of God, ho 
should abandon the Bible, and travel over six or seven centuries of 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH REPLY. 127 

the dark ages, to show that infant baptism is authorized by that 
Word ? He came here to prove that infant baptism is authorized 
by the word of God. I now affirm positively that he has not drawn 
one single passage from the Scripture, that even mentions infant 
baptism. Moreover, he has not found any thing from the primitive 
Fathers. The first he quotes — Tertullian — in the most unequivocal 
terms condems it. Now, Neander says: " We have all reason for 
not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution." — Ec. His., 
vol. 1, p. 311. 

I am opposed to the practice of my friend, for these reasons. 
1st. No man has a divine commission to do it. I have asked him 
to show us a divine commission for the baptizing of infants. By 
what right does he baptize an infant ? By the commission of Jesus 
Christ ? Jesus said : " Go teach the nations, baptizing them." Does 
he teach infants by baptizing them ? Does he preach the Gospel to 
infants, and baptize them ? He wants me to show him that Christ 
has abolished infant baptism. I thought he came here to-day, to 
show that Christ instituted it ; and until he does that, I need not 
attempt to show that he abolished it. It is a thing Christ never 
instituted, and for which he never gave one syllable of authority. 
The thing is not once mentioned in the word of God. I solemnly 
protest against establishing, as a religious rite, and imposing upon 
us, a thing which is not mentioned once in all the word of God. 

I believe my friend asked whether adult baptism is mentioned in 
the word of God. I wonder if those men and women in Samaria 
were adults ? Now I can find where men and women, but not where 
infants, were baptized. 

2d. I hold it to be the inalienable right of every man to bow to 
Christ, and to honor him according to the law. Of this divine right 
infant baptism forever deprives all its subjects. I am just reminded 
of the fact, that he told us that the nations are all under obligation 
to believe. If they are under obligation to believe, they are under 
obligation to be baptized. But they are not under obligation to 
believe, until they have heard the word of God. The Savior said: 
" Go into all the world and preach the Gospel ; " and when they hear 
the Gospel, they must believe and obey it. " How can we believe in 
him of whom we have not heard ? " Now, then, the man that has 
not heard the Gospel, is under no obligation to believe it or obey it. 
No man will be called upon to obey Christ, until he believes in 
Christ, and has heard of him. This is intuitively true, hence Christ 
said : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature." 

3d. We are opposed to the practice of infant baptism, because 
it is without faith, and therefore sinful in the sight of God. " With- 
out faith it is impossible to please him." Are these infants capable 
of exercising faith ? He will tell me their fathers and mothers believe 
for them. Let him show me his authority for this. I tell him to 



128 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

show his authority for this ; but he can not do it. He knows he can 
not do it. There is no authority for it in the word of God. These 
infants can not have faith, and therefore it is sinful to baptize them. 
I solemnly believe that this is the mark of the beast, the sign of the 
great apostasy, and that great evil has grown out of infant baptism. 

4th. A great mass of flesh and blood have been brought into the 
Church, and kept in the Church, believing they had obeyed the Lord 
in his law, when they had no knowledge in regard to this matter. 
The geutleman stands up here to affirm something as authorized by 
the word of God, about which he tells us the Bible is silent. The 
gentleman confesses it is not in the book. What says the Savior 
in reference to this whole matter? I want to read a passage in 
this connection : " I testify unto every man that heareth the words 
of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, 
God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." 
— Rev. xxii : 18. 

Now, the gentleman concedes that the Bible is silent about in- 
fant baptism; and yet he adds it to the ordinances of God. I ask 
him if he is thus willing to stand beneath the terrible anathemas 
of Heaven ? Sometimes men have held to terrible errors conscien- 
tiously ; but, because he is conscientious in this matter, are we to 
suppose that he is right? I hold up before him the word of God 
in love. I would earnestly entreat him to think about it. Why, 
in Christ's name, will our Pedobaptist friends continue to force upon 
the world an institution for which not one passage of Scripture can 
be produced? The Savior has given the Christian religion just as 
he would have it to be. He made provision for the redemption of 
little infants; for the consequence of Adam's sin was taken off just 
as unconditionally as it was put upon them. If we die through 
Adam, that death shall be taken from us just as unconditionally as 
it was put upon us. Now, then, if our infants die, God will take 
care of them. They are just as certain of heaven as they die in 
infancy. Unless you become like one of these, pure in heart, and 
pure in spirit, you can not enter the kingdom of God. When they 
have grown up, and violate the law, they become subjects of the 
law; and to these sinners, God sends forth his preachers, and says: 
"He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved." This is the 
method God has adopted : First, to preach ; second, that the people 
shall hear ; third, that they shall beiieve ; fourth, that they shall be 
baptized; and then he promises to pardon all their past offenses. 
Now, why do not our friends see the simplicity of this whole Gospel 
system? The infants are left to grow up to obey God; and, when 
they come to die, they have the answer of a good conscience. Many 
members of my friend's church, when they come to die, will ask: 
"Have I obeyed the command of God? This I do not know. It 
is no answer of a good conscience to me. I can not testify to my 
conscience that I have been baptized. I know that I have never 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH REPLY. 129 

obeyed the commandment of God to be baptized." I assert, in 
the presence of the Methodist Church here this eveniug, that not 
one of them can know he was baptized or sprinkled in infancy. It 
will remain unknown to every one until God shall reveal it himself. 
If you have bowed to the authority of the Gospel, if you have obeyed 
that Gospel ; you thus have the answer of a good conscience. What 
strange infatuation is imparted to the minds of men, that will make 
them blindly rush on in this way ? Why will they not yield to 
the truth ? Why will they not bow to it ? 

I have shown you that John turned the people to the Lord ; that 
they came to his baptism repenting, and confessing their sins. I 
have shown you that only persons capable of hearing and believing 
are responsible. I have shown you that they heard, believed, re- 
pented, and were baptized, on the day of Pentecost. In perfect 
harmony with this, I proved to you, again, that in Samaria, where 
Philip preached the Gospel, the people believed and were baptized, 
both men and women. This order is preserved throughout : They 
hear, believe, and obey the Gospel. When Paul preached to the 
jailer, he heard, believed, and was baptized. So with Cornelius. 
Peter stood up in the presence of him and his friends, and 
Cornelius heard, believed, and obeyed ; he heard the Gospel, and 
was baptized. So with Saul of Tarsus. The Savior said to him : 
'* I am Jesus of Nazareth." Paul believed it, and went into Damas- 
cus, and bowed to the authority of the word. So with the Corin- 
thians, and all other cases recorded in the New Testament. They 
all heard, believed, and were baptized. The Colossians were raised 
in baptism by faith in God, and to all the Church of that day Peter 
says baptism was the answer of a good conscience. 

My friend has truly failed to show one single case in the word of 
God, wherein mortal being was baptized in the name of the Lord, 
until he believed, in order to obey the Gospel. Now, I appeal to 
you, neighbors and friends, to tell me, whether, in the light of this 
induction, you will longer hestitate to come and accept the truth ? 
Will you go blindly on in the face of these overwhelming demon- 
strations of God's truth ? While you justly honor and respect your 
preachers, yet you should, whenever they tell you that you must 
sprinkle your infants, see that they have a "Thus saith the Lord' 
for it. 

Say to them, show us the law by which Christ and his apostles 
have authorized you to baptize an infant. Do not let them run -off, 
and tell you of the infants in the covenant of Sinai. Christ says 
they can not be in this ; for they must all know the Lord, from the 
least to the greatest ; they must bow to his authority ; they must 
yield to his will. In conclusion : I solemnly commend to you this 
truth — that all must hear, believe, and obey the Gospel in order 
to be saved. 



THIRD PROPOSITION. 



THE BAPTISM OF A BELIEVING PENITENT IS FOR THE REMIS- 
SION OF PAST SINS. 



"Wednesday, September 15, 1869. 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Wednesday, September 15th. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The proposition for discussion this morning reads : " The baptism 
of a believing penitent is for the remission of past sins." This prop- 
osition affirms nothing of the baptism of an unbeliever, whether 
infidel or infant ; nor does it affirm any thing of the baptism of a 
believer simply ; but of the baptism of him only who has believed 
and repented of his past sins. It predicates nothing of sins com- 
mitted after baptism ; only of those committed before baptism. To 
such a person, what is baptism for? I affirm that it is for the re- 
mission of past sins. My friend, Mr. Fitch, denies. 

I would like, in beginning the morning discussion, to ask my 
friend, Mr. Fitch, in view of his denial that baptism is for the re- 
mission of sins, what, then, is it for? If it is not for the remission 
of sins, what is it for ? Surely he will not stand in our presence 
to-day, and deny that it is for the remission of sins, and fail to tell 
us what it is for. 

But, before I proceed to discuss this question, I desire definitely 
to determine in what sense baptism is for the remission .of sins. 
Baptism is not a cause, but a condition, simply, of the remission of 
sins. There is this distinction : The connection between a cause and 
its effect is necessary ; that is, it exists in the very nature of the 
case; while a condition is purely arbitrary. The blood of Christ, 
and the grace of God, are causes of salvation ; faith, repentance, 
and baptism are conditions simply imposed upon the human family 
by the Author of salvation. Now, is baptism, in this sense, a con- 
dition as absolutely essential as faith and repentance? I affirm that 
it is ; my friend denies. 

There are just two great methods of reasoning in this w T orld. I 
shall term these, this morning, the dogmatic and the inductive 
methods. If possible, I wish to illustrate what I mean before I 
proceed to the discussion of the question before us to-day. The 
easiest way to attain this end is by illustration ; and I propose sim- 
ply to reach it in that manner. In all matters that pertain to this 
world — in the sciences, for instance — men have learned to reason 

(133) • 



134 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

inductively ; while yet in religion, they reason dogmatically. Kow, 
to illustrate what I mean : 

A philosopher and student of nature discovers that growth is de- 
pendent; upon the sunshine; in other words, he has found that in 
every instance where growth exists the light and heat of the sun are 
present. He concludes at once that sunshine is the only condition 
of growth. Upon this supposition he builds a theory of growth, and 
defies all who differ with him. 

Somebody else discovers that earth, or matter in some form, is pres- 
ent in every instance of growth ; hence he concludes that earth is the 
only condition of growth. He at once builds him a theory upon this 
fact ; the result is division, strife, and contention, to the shame of the 
scientific world. This we call the dogmatic method. But now, in 
the light of the inductive method, the true philosopher gathers to- 
gether a large number of instances in which growth is present. He 
makes a complete induction of cases, and discovers that in every instance 
of the phenomenon, in every instance of its existence, not only the 
sunshine and earth are present, but that the atmosphere and water 
are also present in each case. What is the infallible conclusion that 
obtains by this induction ? Simply that air, earth, water, and sun- 
shine are absolutely necessary to growth. In the one case, the con- 
clusion is infallibly certain; in the other case, it is simply a conclu- 
sion based upon a dogmatic and illogical interpretation of nature. 

Now, it is just so in regard to the questions that pertain to sal- 
vation. An individual reads in his Testament that the Lord Jesus 
"tasted of death for every man; " that "he gave himself a propitia- 
tion for our sins — and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole 
world." Reading such passages as these, he at once concludes that 
salvation depends only upon the shedding of the blood of Christ, and 
he builds up a theory which he calls Universalism. We may tell him 
that the Bible says the guilty "shall be damned," and that the un- 
godly "shall go away into everlasting punishment;" but what does 
that amount to ? His theory suits him. He thinks that Christ died 
for all men, and hence all must be saved ; and though he makes God's 
word contradict itself, he will refuse to yield, and will endeavor to 
maintain his theory. 

Again: another individual reads such passages as these — "There- 
fore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our 
Lord Jesus Christ." Again: "Whosoever believes that Jesus is the 
Christ, is born of God; " "He that believeth on the Son, hath eter- 
nal life;" "But he that believeth not, shall be damned." He de- 
velops a theory of justification by faith only, and puts this forth as 
the teaching of God. You may tell him the same word says: "Re- 
pent and be baptized;" that a "man is justified by works, and not 
by faith only;" that it says "ye are saved by baptism:" you may 
point him to all these scriptures; but what of that? It suits him. 
The theory of faith alone shall be adopted, and, though it should make 



MR. BROOKfl'S FIRST ADDRESS. 135 

discord, and contradict the Lord, he will maintain it at all hazards, 
and under all circumstances. 

With regard to this whole question, I want to submit a canon of 
interpretation that even my friend will not deny. I submit it in the 
spirit of true philosophy, and in the words of a critical and distin- 
guished thinker of this age: 

' ' Where salvation is promised to a person, or affirmed of him, on 
certain named conditions, though it may depend on more conditions 
than those named, it can never dep'end on less." 

Now, my friend will not dare to deny this canon of interpretation. 
In the light of this law of interpretation we propose to investigate the 
word of God. I wish, then, to say, in advance, that every passage 
that my friend shall quote on this occasion, to show that we are justi- 
fied or saved by faith, I just as firmly believe as he can possibly do. 
Why ? Because this fact is declared in the word of the living God. 
To apply the canon, and illustrate : 

The Savior says: "He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be 
saved; and he that believeth not, shall be damned." Now, salvation 
is affirmed of those that believe in this passage ; and, according to 
the canon, though it may depend on other conditions, it certainly 
depends on this, because it is named in the passage quoted. But my 
friend will acknowledge that it depends upon other conditions not 
named in the passage. He will not question the fact that salvation 
depends upon repentance ? Why does he not question this ? Why, 
he will tell us, because it is named in other passages. For instance, 
Acts ii: 38: 

"Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus, 
for the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." _ 

In this passage, repentance is a named condition of salvation. I 
shall use in this discussion the expressions, ' ' salvation from past sins " 
and "remission of past sins," as synonymous phrases. Why does he 
say repentance is a condition of salvation ? Because, in this passage, 
it is named as a condition of salvation. Now, then, while salvation 
may depend upon other conditions, we know that it can not depend 
upon less than those named in the passage. But baptism is also 
named as a condition of salvation : in the one passage, with faith ; in 
the other, with repentance. In the expression "He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned," faith and baptism are named conditions of salvation; in 
the other, repentance and baptism. Is it not a little strange that the 
gentleman, while discussing the general proposition, will grant that 
there are other conditions of salvation named in other passages, and 
yet, at the same time, ignore one of the very conditions named in the 
passages he quotes ? 

This brings us to what I wanted to say. My friend will not ques- 
tion this canon of interpretation ; nor will he attempt at length to 



136 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

answer the arguments I shall make, but he will attempt to make good 
His position by making the word to contradict itself. This* will be 
the inevitable result of his efforts upon this question. His great and 
only aim will be to prove that we are justified by faith, and I want 
to save him all his labor and trouble. I will say to him, that I 
believe every such passage as firmly as he does, and, if he will quote 
one passage that says ye are justified by faith alone, I will say 
to this audience that I believe that. His object will be not to refute 
my argument, but to prove to this audience that we are justified by 
faith only. To prove that, he must find passages of Scripture that 
say we are justified by faith only. We predict, then, that this will 
be the method of his argument to-day. He will agree with me that 
faith and repentance are named conditions of salvation, and that, 
therefore, salvation can not depend upon less than these. In that 
confession he overthrows his theory of justification by faith only. 

I maintain, also, that baptism is a named condition, and is, there- 
fore, for the remission of sins. My first argument is founded on 
the commission "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; 
but he that believeth not, shall be damned." — Mark xvi: 16. 

In this passage, salvation is affirmed of a certain class, not simply 
of him that believes — there is nothing affirmed of him — but of him 
that believeth and is baptized. Not one syllable is affirmed in this 
passage of him that believes simply; but "he that believeth and is 
baptized shall be saved." 

Baptism is, then, a condition of salvation, because it is named in 
the commission as a condition. Now, salvation may depend upon 
other things not named in this passage, but not upon less than faith 
and baptism. 

Again, I invite your attention to the commission as a whole. 
Matthew says: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." — 
xviii: 19. 

Mark says : " Go preach the gospel to every creature ; and he that 
believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, 
shall be damned." — xvi: 15, 16. Now, what Mark says has to cor- 
respond with the teaching of Matthew, for it is one and the same 
commission. 

Luke says: "Thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from 
the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Je- 
rusalem." — xxiv: 46, 47. Luke, then, has repentance and remission 
of sins in his name. Now, then, we put that commission together, 
and we have the preaching of the gospel, faith in that gospel, repent- 
tance and baptism for the remission of sins. This commission is the 
great organic law of the kingdom of Christ on earth: Under it he sent 
forth his apostles to preach, and by the authority of that commission 
every man on this earth preaches who preaches the Gospel in the 



mr. brooks's first address. 137 

name of Christ. That commission impels every preacher to call on 
the people to believe, to repent, and to be baptized. The Lord has 
promised, on these conditions, the remission of sins ; hence, unequivo- 
cally, these are the terms laid down, through which salvation is attained. 
Suppose I should take one of these conditions out, say that of faith, 
would not my friend be startled? Would he not raise the battle-cry, 
and gather his brother Methodist preachers around him? Would he 
not crush me if it were in his power to do it? Well, now, when he 
lays the sacrilegious hand on that organic law, and takes away from 
it baptism, and tells us this is not a condition upon which pardon 
is to be given to man, I want to know if he has not committed the 
same sacrilege, and trampled under his feet the same organic law 
that I would have overthrown in rejecting faith? But, it is some- 
times asked, does the Savior say: He that believeth not and is not 
baptized shall be damned? No, sir. And if he had said it, it 
would have degraded him in the presence of mortal man forever. 
Why, sir, the unbeliever, though he were baptized ten thousand 
times, could not have his sins washed away. My friend knows this ; 
and I confess that I never hear this declaration fall from the lips of 
man, that my cheek does not burn with the blush of shame for him 
who makes it. He that believeth not and is not baptized, shall be 
damned. He will be damned if he believe not, as certain as he shall 
stand in the judgment. 

My second argument is based on Acts ii : 38: "Kepent and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

Now, it is to be presumed that the apostles of Christ, inspired by 
the Spirit of God, knew what the Savior meant in this commission. 
He sent them out under this commission, but said to them, "Tarry 
in Jerusalem until you are endowed with power from on high ; " 
until the Spirit has descended upon you. Peter preached Jesus 
the Christ — the people heard, believed, and cried out, " Men and 
brethren, what shall we do?" Now, if the theory of my friend is 
correct, these men were justified the moment they believed. Then, 
why did they cry out, "What shall we do?" If a man is justified 
by faith alone, the moment he believes he is pardoned. But, 
after the people believed, Peter said unto them, "Repent, and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." 
Thus we have his answer, in the very language of our prop- 
osition to-day, and in the language of my friend since this discus- 
sion began. On yesterday, he said that these Pentecostians, having 
apostatized from the faith, and rejected the Savior, now, "by being 
baptized, received remission of sins in his name." He has, then, 
already acknowledged every thing we claim in this proposition, to- 
wit: that baptism is for the remission of sins. But my friend may 
tell you to-day that the preposition eis does not always mean for; 
12 



138 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

true, but we affirm, most unequivocally, that it does mean "for,* 
in the sense of "in order to," in this passage, and it can not mean 
any thing else. I want him to tell us what it does mean, if it does 
not mean that. Dr. Hackett, one of the most eminent scholars in 
this country or age, renders it in order to, and Dr. Lynd, formerly 
of Georgetown College, reuders it in the same way. We venture to 
predict that my friend will want to go to translating again this 
morning. He is one of the most constant and earnest translators I 
have met with for a long time, yet he is thoroughly opposed to trans- 
lation. We are willing to accept King James's translation, and 
believe it exactly right in this case; but he shall not say, as he 
usually does, that eis has a half dozen definitions. I intend to have 
Dr. Fitch on the passage. If he intends to translate, let him say 
just what it means, and nothing more. 

That the humblest person may understand this passage, I want 
to bring out its meaning by a simple transposition of its members. 
Suppose we drop the expression baptize ; we have then simply " Re- 
pent eis (for) the remission of sins." What does it mean now ? 
Will my friend say, Repent — "eis" — because your sins are remitted? 
He will say it simply means " Repent in order to the remission of 
sins." Does the presence or absence of the word baptize change 
the sense of the particle ? Or does he, when he reads this passage, 
just pick up "baptize," and hold it until he reads the sentence, and 
then put it back ? This is, truly, a convenient way of disposing of 
the passage. If "eis" does not mean "for," as he said it did yes- 
terday, I insist that he shall tell us what it does mean to-day. 

My third argument is based on the baptism of Paul — Acts 
xxii : 16 : "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling 
on the name of the Lord." 

The circumstances of Paul's conversion are these : He was on his 
way from Jerusalem to Damascus, and when he came near the city, 
the Lord himself appeared and said, "I am Jesus whom thou per- 
secutest;" and Paul replied, " Lrfrd, what wilt thou have me to 
do? " Without a moment's hesitation, he believed what the Savior 
said. What did the Savior reply ? " Go into Damascus, and there 
it shall be told you "what you must do." Now, my friend would 
have you believe that Paul's sins were forgiven the moment he be- 
lieved. But, after he had been a believing penitent for three days 
in Damascus, Ananias said, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." What superlative non- 
sense and folly, if Paul's sins had been remitted, for Ananias to have 
said, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins." If his sins 
were all cleansed, why tell him to arise and wash them away? 

In what sense are we to understand the expression, " wash aw r ay 
your sins"? Simply in the sense of separation from sin. It is 
equivalent to the expression of Peter: "Repent, and be baptized 
for the remission of your sins." When a man goes down into the 



mr. brooks's first address. 189 

water, he obeys the last condition of salvation, and Christ, therefore, 
remits all his sins. Paul believed when the Savior spoke to him upon 
the highway; and when he had repented, with prayer and fasting, 
for three days and nights, he was commanded to arise, and be bap- 
tized, and wash away his sins ; and now, having complied with 
all the conditions of the organic law, his sins were remitted. In 
this sense, then, the sins oC the great Apostle were washed away 
when he was baptized. 

My fourth argument is found in the following class of Scrip- 
tures : " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ." — Galatians iii : 27. "Know ye not that so many 
of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death?" — Romans vi : 3. "Baptizing them into the name of 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." — Matthew xxviii : 19. 

I have read " into the name," in perfect harmony with the orig- 
inal, and iu accordance with the rendering of Dr. Stewart, the great 
Pedobaptist scholar ; and in harmony with what Dr. Lynd tells us 
is the voice of the great majority of scholars on earth. He says, in 
his little tract on baptism, which I hold in ray hand : 

"The formula of baptism, as now admitted by scholars, is 'into 
the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit,' and not, 
as in our common version, l in the name.' This translation implies 
no more than the administration of baptism by the authority of the 
Trinity. A revision of this passage will settle the question, Who 
are the proper subjects of baptism? The formula 'into the name/ 
is a declaration that the person baptized openly, formally, and vol- 
untarily submits himself to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; takes 
Christ for his Lord, and solemnly binds himself to be governed by 
his laws." 

Mr. Stewart, in his letter to Dr. Fishback, of Lexington, rendered 
this passage "into," as I have rendered it. (See Campbell and 
Rice, p. 500.) 

Now, then, upon these passages: "For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." My friend will 
not claim that a mau is pardoned until he has come into Christ, 
nor until he puts on the righteousness of Christ; "for," says the 
Apostle, " as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ." We can not believe into Christ, nor put him on 
by faith only. Again : we can not have remission of our sins ex- 
cept in the blood of the Lord Jesus. The Apostle says, "We are 
buried into his death by baptism." Then we can not come to his 
blood until, through baptism, we come into the death of our blessed 
Redeemer. 

Again : No man has remission of sins until he comes into rela- 
tion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; until he bows to their 
authority, and swears allegiance to them ; until he takes upon him- 
self every obligation imposed by obedience to the Gospel. He is 



140 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

baptized, then, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
and thus assumes these relations. 

My fifth argument is founded upon the anointing and consecra- 
tion of the priesthood. The anointing and consecration of the 
Jewish priesthood, was typical of the anointing and consecration 
of the Christian priesthood. The whole tabernacle service was but 
a type of the Christian Church. Under that economy, the anoint- 
ing and consecration to the priestly office was after this manner : 
The priest was first brought to the door of the tabernacle ; his body 
was then washed in the w T aters of the laver ; in the second place, the 
robes of office were placed upon him ; in the third place, he was 
anointed with oil poured upon his head ; and then, in the fourth 
place, the blood of atonement was sprinkled upon him. [This is 
described in Leviticus viii, which we have not now time to read.] 
Just so, when the Son of God came to John, his body was washed 
in the Jordan. He put on no robes of righteousness, for he was 
already righteous ; then he was anointed with the descending Spirit 
of God. He had no sprinkling of blood upon him, for there was no 
necessity for it in the case of the Lord Jesus Christ. But Christ 
was a royal priest, after the order of Melchisedec ; even so we are 
all royal priests, the Apostle tells us. Like our great High Priest, 
then, we come first to the Savior by baptism, wherein our bodies 
are washed in pure water, and wherein we put on Christ. " For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." — 
Gal. iii : 25. He then is our robe of righteousness, and in bap- 
tism we put him on. Again : having our bodies washed in the laver 
of baptism, we receive the anointing of the Spirit. " Repent, and 
be baptized for the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of 
the Holy Spirit." — Acts ii : 38. Finally, in baptism we come into 
his death. We " were baptized into his death " (Romans vi : 3) ; and 
thus come to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things 
than that of Abel. Not until we come to baptism, then, do we put 
on our righteousness, or have our hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science by the blood of Christ, or receive the Holy Spirit, anointing 
us with all the graces of the Christian life. Hence says Paul : " Let 
us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having 
our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed 
with pure water." — Hebrews x : 22. 

Now, will Mr. Fitch claim that our sins are remitted before this 
takes place ? The thought is superlatively ridiculous and absurd. 

I venture the assertion, that even my friend can not, to save his 
life, show that he is a priest. He does not know, and he can not 
show, that he himself has ever been consecrated to the priestly office. 
Can he show that he has been buried with Christ into his death ? 
Can he say, in the full assurance of faith, that his heart has been 
sprinkled from an evil conscience, and his body washed in pure water f 
No, sir. He dare not do it. He knows he has never had his 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 141 

body thus washed. More than that, there is not a man in this house 
who can know he is a priest unto God, if sprinkled in infancy. I 
will not question my friend's devotion, but I simply come to the 
word of God, and ask him if he has had his body washed in cleans- 
ing water? Moreover, has he any assurance that he can put on 
Christ until he is baptized into Christ? He can not show it by a 
" Thus saith the Lord," and I defy him to do it on this occasion. 

My sixth argument is found in Peter iii: 21 : " The like figure 
whereunto baptism doth also now save us ; not the putting away of 
the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

In some sense, then, baptism saves us, for the passage simply 
affirms that it does. In what sense can baptism be said to save us? 
We have already seen that it is a condition of the remission of sins. 
In this sense, then, it saves us ; without it we are not saved, with it 
saved. This is simply conclusive. 

The Apostle draws a comparison between type and antitype, and 
makes the waters of the flood, by which Noah and his family were 
saved, the type of baptism. He that is saved must pass through 
the waters of baptism, as Noah through the waters of the flood. It 
saves us in the sense simply of remission of sins. It is to be con- 
strued in the same sense of the expression, " Arise, and be baptized, 
and wash away your sins." Also of that upon Pentecost, " Repent, 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." Again, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he can not enter the kingdom of God." In the sense of these pas- 
sages, baptism saves us, not in putting away the filth of the flesh, but 
in the answer of a good conscience toward God. When has a man 
the answer of a good conscience ? When can you sleep quietly and 
at ease under your own vine and fig-tree ? When you know you 
have been obedient to the law of the land, and the terrors of that law 
do not hang over you. So, when you know that you have obeyed the 
commandment of the living God, you have a good conscience, and 
are at peace. Baptism, then, is necessary to the answer of a good 
conscience, and he that does it as an act of obedience to the com- 
mand of God, shall be saved; but in disobedience to this command, 
no man can be saved. He that deliberately refuses to obey in one 
point, is guilty of the sin that would rest upon him, had he dis- 
obeyed the whole law. 

But again. My seventh argument is based on John iii : 5 : "Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God." Now, my dear friends, the language before 
us is plain and simple. My friend may try to escape its force, and 
say the kingdom of God and the Church are two things. If he does, 
I will prove, by his own creed, that they are synonymous. I will 
hold him strictly to his creed on this subject, and I will prove it by 



142 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

that creed which he has taken a solemn vow to enforce in all its 
parts. 

Now, " except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can 
not enter into the kingdom of God." Well, can a man be saved out 
of the kingdom of God, who is a rebel against the authority of 
that kingdom ? Infants may who have never rebelled, but can a 
responsible man be saved out of it? The creed of my friend says he 
can not, for he quotes this very passage whenever he goes to baptize 
a man or an infant, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Well, now, if a 
man can not be saved out of the kingdom of God, and he can not enter 
that kingdom until he is born of water — baptized — and of the Spirit, 
then, sir, he is lost, forever lost, without this regeneration. Bap- 
tism, then, must necessarily be a condition of entering the kingdom. 
If men can not come into the kingdom here without it, does the 
gentleman tell them that he is going to get them into the eternal 
kingdom without it? Will he show us his authority for this, how 
men are to leap over the kingdom of God on earth, and get into the 
kingdom of glory ? The Savior expressly says, " Except a man be 
born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom 
of God." He says all that. Then, I most unequivocally affirm that 
except a man who has heard the Gospel, and believed, is baptized, 
he can not enter the kingdom of God. It is simply impossible. 
That man who has heard the Gospel, and believes the Gospel, and 
has acknowledged his faith in Christ, and yet has refused to obey 
this commandment, will be damned as certainly as he stands before 
the eternal bar of judgment. I do not intend, for a moment, to ac- 
knowledge any thing else. Our friend may introduce to-day what 
brother Sweeney calls the horrific argument, but my solemn convic- 
tion is, that the man who hears, and refuses to obey the Gospel, will 
be damned. I affirm nothing of the man who has never heard the 
Gospel, nor of the man who has heard the Gospel and believed, but 
has had no opportunity of being baptized — if such a thing can be 
conceived; but I do affirm, most unequivocally, and I want to 
staud in the presence of my fellow-citizens and affirm, that if you 
believe and refuse to be baptized, if Christ is honest, and that book 
is from him, you will be lost, as sure as you are here to-day. My 
friend will say that by this I will send all the Methodists and tho^e 
who have not obeyed the Gospel to perdition. I shall do no such 
thing. I have been trying to convert them, for years past, to what 
I believe to be the truth, and if they deliberately and persistently 
refuse to obey that truth, I leave them in the hands of God. If 
they are lost, Christ will condemn them, because of their deliberate 
disobedience. It is not worth while to talk about these things one 
moment. If baptism is by the command of God — and we know it 
to be by his command — he who disobeys is lost forever. I know 
my friend, and know that there is no better heart or clearer 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 143 

head among all his brethren. I am not here to question his honesty 
or piety ; but if he goes down to the grave in deliberate disobedience, 
he is lost, and forever lost! 

My eighth and last argument is founded upon Titus iii: 5, and 
Ephesians v : 25, 26 : 

' ' He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Spirit." 

" Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, 
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with 
the washing of water by the word." 

" He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the 
Holy Spirit." "The washing of regeneration" is not equivalent to 
"the sanctification of the Spirit," for the Apostle adds, in the same 
passage, "renewing of the Holy Spirit." We are saved by the 
two — the renewing of the Spirit, and the washing of regeneration. 
Nor does the expression mean "regeneration" simply; it is the 
"washing of regeneration" Now, what is this? Water is the ele- 
ment necessary to washing. In the New Testament, water is only 
connected with "baptism," hence "the washing of regeneration" is 
baptism. It is nothing else. Then we are saved by baptism and 
the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This is just what Christ said to 
Nicodemus : "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
can not enter into the kingdom of God." In other words, a man 
must be baptized and born of the Spirit of God. Baptism is an 
element of the new birth. In this sense, the washing of regenera- 
tion, or the laver of regeneration, saves us. Can any thing be 
plainer than this? Can my friend stand up here to-day and say 
baptism does not save us? I am sometimes astonished at the way 
some men presume to handle the word of God. Men will stand up 
and profess to believe that word, and yet tell you plainly that its 
declarations are not true. God said it through his apostles, and the 
Savior said he would ratify in heaven what they said on earth. Yet 
men will boldly and defiantly tell you these Scriptures do not mean 
what they say. When Christ says: "Except a man be born of 
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God," — I 
believe it ; and I believe every utterance of the Spirit in regard to this 
matter. I as firmly believe all Scriptures making faith a condition 
of salvation as he does, and if he will show us one w T hich bases if 
"upon faith only," I will believe that. 

He gave himself for the Church. In the second passage which 
we have quoted, he says: "Husbands, love your wives, even as 
Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might 
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." I 
want to read what Wesley says upon this subject in his notes in loco: 
"That he might sanctify it through the word — the ordinary channel 
of all blessings; having cleansed it from the guilt and power of sin, 
by the washing of water in baptism, if with the ' outward and visible 



144 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

sign' we receive the 'inward and spiritual grace.'" Besides, Wes- 
ley's rendering of the passage is clear : ' ' That he might sanctify it 
(having cleansed it by the washing of water) through the word." 
The sanctincation of the passage, then, is through the word. 
"Sanctify them through thy truth," says the Savior. The washing 
is baptism, Mr. Wesley says. Then again: "We are saved by the 
washing of water," in perfect harmony with what the Savior says : 
"Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter 
the kingdom of God." Now, I ask you to put these four passages 
together : ' ' Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. " ' ' Ex- 
cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into 
the kingdom of God. " ' ' He saved us by the washing of regenera- 
tion and renewing of the Holy Spirit." "Sanctified and cleansed 
the Church with the washing of water by the word." "Thus be- 
lieving and repenting" answer to the "birth of the Spirit," "the re- 
newing of the Holy Spirit," and " sanctincation by the word;" bap- 
tism to the "birth of water," "washing of regeneration," and the 
washing of water;" and without both we can not be saved. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 145 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I most heartily thank the brother for two things — I thank him, 
first, for the solicitude which he feels for my spiritual welfare and 
eternal salvation. I would suggest, however, that he would advance 
the interests of the cause which he is here to advocate more by 
argument than by exhortation, especially as his exhortations are 
lost upon me; for I feel that I am already converted. But, if he 
must exhort, I would advise him to direct his remarks to some of 
those hardened sinners who are at the rear of the congregation. 

The other thing for which I thank him is, that he has pursued 
exactly the train of argument I desired him to pursue ; and this 
will make my reply much more easy than it would have been had 
he dodged about as he did day before yesterday, when he was in 
the affirmative. The gentleman has shown considerable tact and 
adroitness in dodging and in evading the issue, as well as in covering 
up his retreat. He delights most to be on the negative side of the 
question. He likes to have me affirm, in order that he may deny. 
In the very outset, he called upon me to state what baptism was 
for ; he asked what it could possibly be for, if not for the remission 
of sins. It would afford me much pleasure to accommodate the 
gentleman on any other occasion, but I certainly shall not accom- 
modate him this morning. 

It does not devolve upon me to show what baptism is for. I am 
willing to admit that it has its proper place and purpose — its proper 
work in the economy of salvation — but I am not here to show what 
it is for. He affirms that it is for the remission of past sins ; and 
tha,t I deny. He says it is as much a condition as faith, or as re- 
pentance; and he combines the three together as conditions of par- 
don. Faith is a condition, repentance is a condition, and baptism 
is a condition. I suppose, then, that faith carries a man one-third 
of the way, repentance another third of the way, and then baptism 
completes the work of salvation, and he comes out of the water a 
pardoned man. He appeals here to a canon of criticism presented 
by an eminent friend and co-laborer of his, Moses E. Lard, and calls 
upon me to deny its authority, if I dare. You heard that canon of 
criticism, which is to this effect, that, while salvation might depend 
upon more things than are mentioned, it can not depend upon less. 
Let us try this canon. 

Jesus Christ says : " Except ye eat of the flesh of the Son of man, 
13 



146 BR00K3 AND FITCH DEBATE. 

and drink his Mood, ye have no life in yon." Is not the Lord's 
Supper here spoken of in connection with salvation? Why not in- 
clude it, then, as well as baptism, and every thing else that is by 
any of the sacred writers associated with salvation? The brother 
told us, in his speech, that he intended to u*e " salvation" as synony- 
mous with the remission of sins. Very well, let him do that. But 
he knows very well that "salvation" is an ambiguous term — that it 
has more than one meaning; that it sometimes refers to present 
pardon, and at other times it refers to final justification in heaven. 
If, then, he employs passages to prove that baptism is for the remis- 
sion of sins, in which this term is used in different senses, does he 
not, involve the question in difficulty and ambiguity? 

Before this discussion commenced, this morning, my good brother 
Wiles came to brother Brooks, in my presence, and told him that 
he wanted him to settle this question forever, because he considered 
it one of the most important questions in the whole range of theol- 
ogy. I beg leave to differ with brother Wiles. It is hardly impor- 
tant enough to debate, because if baptism is for the remission of 
sins, are not sins remitted in other churches as well as in the Chris- 
tian Church, so called? There might be some significance and im- 
portance in this question, if the other churches in the land refused 
to baptize men and women. But, if they baptize men and women, 
as a matter of course sins are remitted in all churches. This he is 
bound to admit, unless he considers it efficacious only when admin- 
istered by one of his faith and order; and, if he desires to make 
such an affirmation, I am ready to deny it. 

The only question that becomes at all important, then, is the 
question as to whether sprinkling or pouring water upon a proper 
subject is baptism. If baptism is for the remission of sins, surely 
my good brother, the President Moderator, realized the remission 
of his sins when he went down into the yielding wave and the liquid 
grave, as well as Mr. Brooks. I want him to bear in mind, that 
if baptism is for the remission of sins, then sins are remitted in all 
the churches in the land, because, I believe, they all practice bap- 
tism, except the Quakers. Our attention was called, by my oppo- 
nent, to the latter clause of the commission: "He that believeth 
and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not, shall be 
damned." He told us that he intended to use the terms salvation s 
and remission of sins as synonymous ; but does not the term saved,* 
in this connection, imply something more than the remission of 
past sins? I think it is evident to every one, that something more 
than the remission of past sins is here implied. Neither does it 
appear that the salvation of the text is dependent upon the mere act 
of baptism. 

The passage does not apply to the question under discussion in 
the remotest degree. The meaning of ic is this: that the man who 
continues to believe, who lives up to and fulfills the obligations 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 147 

which lie assumes in the act of baptism, shall finally be saved in 
heaven. But the brother affirms that baptism is a condition of 
pardon, or is in order to the remission of sins. Let us have the 
question stated fairly. He teaches that a man may believe and re- 
pent to-day ; he may have all the faith it is possible for him to 
exercise; he may be as penitent as it is possible for him to be ; but 
if he is not baptized until to-morrow, or next week, during all this 
time that intervenes between the exercise of faith, and the act of 
turning to God by repentance, and his baptism, he is a condemned 
and unpardoned sinner. That is the position taken by Alexander 
Campbell. He says : ■" Whatever the act of faith may be, it neces- 
sarily becomes the line of discrimination between the two states be- 
fore described. On this side and on that mankind are in quite dif- 
ferent states. On the one side, they are pardoned, justified, sanc- 
tified, reconciled, adopted, and saved. On the other, they are in a 
state of condemnation. This act is sometimes called immersion, 
regeneration, conversion; and, that this may appear obvious to all, 
we shall be at some pains to confirm and illustrate it." 

So you see that, while the man is unbaptized — and immersion is the 
only baptism, according to his teaching — it matters not what may be 
his moral state — he is unpardoned, unsanctified, un regenerated, and 
has never been adopted into the family of God; but as soon as he 
crosses this line — as soon as he is immersed — his state, his nature, 
and every thing pertaining to him as a moral being is changed. Now, 
sir, we object to this theory, because Christ taught emphatically 
that whosoever believeth on Jesus as the Christ is born of God. I 
will read 1 John v : 1 : " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ 
is born of God." Again, John i: 12, 13 : "But as many as received 
him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God ; which were 
born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
but of God." 

Elder Moses E. Lard, in his review of "Campbellism Examined," 
page 100, section 9, says "That belief in Christ and being born of 
God are identical." The question now to be decided is whether one 
who is born of God is pardoned. Elder Moses E. Lard, the author 
of the canon of criticism which Mr. B. presented in his speech, says 
that belief in Christ and being born of God are identical. If, then, 
we can show that one who is born of God is pardoned, his proposi- 
tion is untrue. Christ says: "He that believeth on him" — that is, 
on the Son — "is not condemned," and " He that believeth on the Son 
hath everlasting life." When a man believes on the Son, he is born 
of God, and is not condemned. Is a man who is not condemned 
pardoned ? Most certainly ! Will brother Brooks affirm that a man 
may be born of God, uncondemned, and yet be unpardoned? I think 
not. The guilty are always condemned until pardoned. If the 
believer in Christ is not condemned, he must be pardoned. Par- 
don is the reversal of the condemnatory sentence of the law. It 



148 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

is not something that takes place in the heart of man, but an act 
that takes place m the mind of God — a legal enactment by which his 
sins are remitted, and the condemnatory sentence of the law reversed 
through Jesus Christ. We think that we have proven that a man 
may be pardoned before baptism. No minister will baptize an adult 
until he believes ; and when he believes, he is born of God, and is not 
condemned. The guilty are always under condemnation until par- 
doned. If he that belie veth on Christ is not condemned, he must be 
pardoned. According to the teaching of Elder Moses E. Lard, an 
un baptized man may be pardoned. Robert Graham, a minister of 
the "Christian Church," in a sermon on Regeneration, found in "The 
Living Pulpit," remarks on John i: 13 "We become children by 
virtue of faith. By a birth of flesh, we wear the image of Adam ; by 
a birth of Spirit, we wear the image of Christ. Our flesh is born of 
flesh ; our spirit is born of Spirit. Being then begotten by God, and 
born into his kingdom of grace, we are his children, and Christ is our 
elder brother." 

We object to the proposition that baptism is a condition of pardon, or 
is in order to the remission of sins, because both the Old and the New 
Testament Scriptures promise remission of sins upon the simple con- 
dition of faith in Jesus Christ. In Acts x : 43, Peter, who, some of 
our good friends say, had the keys of the kingdom, and opened it 
to both Jews and Gentiles, says : "To him give all the prophets wit- 
ness, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive 
remission of sins." The inspired Peter declares that all the prophets 
gave their testimony to this fact, that, through his name, whosoever 
believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. Which will you be- 
lieve : Brother Brooks, or Peter, the inspired Apostle ? Which un- 
derstood the question the better ? When, therefore, we preach justi- 
fication, or pardon, upon the condition of faith, we preach what all 
the prophets preached, and what Peter preached when he discipled 
the Gentiles. When did a prophet preach baptism, or any thing like 
it, for the remission of sins? I defy my opponent to find within the 
lids of the Old Testament a place in which it is said that a prophet 
ever preached baptism as a condition for the remission of sins. Peter 
says they all preached remission of sins through faith in His name. 
Peter was at that time preaching in the house of Cornelius. The 
occasion was remarkable. While he was preaching, he uttered the 
language we have quoted: "To him gave all the prophets witness 
that, through his name, whosoever believeth in him shall receive the 
remission of sins : " and, while he spoke these words, the Holy Ghost 
fell upon them. God Almighty demonstrated the truth of the doc- 
trine which the prophets had before preached, and which Peter then 
preached. They believed hi Christ, they received the gift of the Holy 
Ghost, and yet, according to the teaching of the brother, they were 
unpardoned. The Holy Ghost fell upon all them that heard the 
word. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 149 

Moses E. Lard, in his review of " Campbellism Examined," p. 
118, uses this language: "That the Spirit can not enter into the 
unconverted." 

If Moses E. Lard is correct, these persons at the house of Cor- 
nelius were converted. He says that the Spirit can not enter into 
the unconverted man. Then they were converted, according to 
Elder Lard, when they received the Holy Ghost. If so, the ques- 
tion to be decided is, whether a converted man is pardoned or un- 
pardoned. We will let Peter decide that, for we want this question 
decided by the word of God. In Acts iii : 19, Peter says: "Ke- 
pent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted 
out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of 
the Lord." 

Then when a man is converted, his sins are blotted out, and when 
his sins are blotted out, they are remitted. Then, Mr. Lard being 
judge, the assembly in the house of Cornelius were converted and 
pardoned when they received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and yet, 
both he and my good brother Brooks will take the position that 
the Spirit of God has nothing to do with the conversion of the 
sinner, and only dwells in the converted man. The persons at the 
house of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before they were bap- 
tized. I know how the gentleman will undertake to answer this 
argument. I have seen it attempted by several of his brethren. 
He will say that the Spirit was given in its miraculous powers. I 
call upon him to show, in the word of God, where the Holy Spirit 
was ever given to an unconverted man. Is it not unreasonable to 
suppose that God would give the Holy Spirit, in its miraculous 
workings and powers, to a sinner, without its sanctifying and com- 
forting influences? If he should take that position to-day, I would 
ask him how we are to distinguish between the miracles wrought by 
men of God through the power and agency of the Holy Spirit, and 
those wrought by wicked men to whom God has given his Spirit? 
When a man comes along exhibiting the miraculous powers of the 
Holy Ghost, if God gives the Holy Spirit, in its miracle-working 
powers, to the unconverted man, we can not tell whether he is a 
converted man or whether he is a sinner. How then shall we re- 
ceive his testimony? The idea is contrary to the spirit and genius 
of the Gospel. When conversion takes place, then sins are blotted 
out, and when sins are blotted out, they are certainly remitted. 
Peter, giving an account of this transaction, Acts xv : 8, 9, savs : 
"And God, which knoweth the hearts, bear them witness, giving 
them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us : and put no differ- 
ence between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." 

"Bear them witness" of what? Of the fact that they believed 
in Christ and were accepted of God, "for the Spirit itself beareth 
witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." God 
gave them the Holy Ghost to purify their hearts, and witness 



150 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to them that they were his children. Then Peter asks, "Can any 
man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" How then could bap- 
tism have been a condition of their pardon ? Peter affirms that 
God put no difference between those converted at the house of Cor- 
nelius and those converted on the day of Pentecost. How could 
baptism have been a condition of pardon in the case of the latter, 
when it was not in the case of the former? If those whom Peter 
addressed on the day of Pentecost did not, and could not, receive 
the remission of sins until they were baptized, then there was a 
difference made between them and the converts at the house of Cor- 
nelius. Let this transaction at the house of Cornelius explain what 
occurred on the day of Pentecost. 

Now, my dear friends, do you all know that Mr. Brooks comes 
here and preaches to you a doctrine that is not taught in the New 
Testament, unless in this one passage in the Second of Acts, and 
this is susceptible of another interpretation ? Do you know that his 
theory is based upon one little Greek word that is translated in the 
New Testament probably by a score of terms? It is translated into, 
to, as far as, to the extent of, until, against, before, in the place of, 
in order to, for, with a view to, for the use or service of, with ref- 
erence to, etc. He bases the theory of baptism, as a condition of 
pardon, upon the little Greek word " eis," which is so variously 
translated. I defy him to find the expression "baptized for the re- 
mission of sins" in another place in the New Testament. I defy 
him or any of his brethren here with him, to show 7 when an apostle 
ever required a Gentile to be baptized before his sins were remitted. 
They can not do it. There is not such another case as this in the 
New Testament — not one. 

My brother contends, that, as used here, it means "in order to the 
remission of sins." We say a man was hung "for stealing." Is 
not that correct language? Do we, therefore, mean that Jie was 
hung in order to steal? I say, a man was imprisoned "for debt." 
Do I not in this case, also, speak correctly? But does it follow that 
the man was imprisoned that he might get into debt? I say, further, 
that a man was hung for murder. Does this expression imply that 
the man was hung in order to commit murder? Then what an am- 
biguous expression ' ' baptized for the remission of sins " is ! 

I will also call upon the brother to explain another passage, where 
it is said, I baptize you "eis " repentance. In our translation it is unto 
repentance. But the preposition is the same in both cases. If, in 
the first place, it means in order to the remission of sins, in the other 
place it must mean in order to repentance. Did John baptize those 
who came to him, in order that they might repent? He baptized 
them upon a profession of repentance. Those upon the day of 
Pentecost were baptized upon a profession, or into a profession, of 
faith in Christ, and repentance for the remission of sins. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 151 

But I wish to examine this case because it is an unusual one, there 
not being such another in the New Testament. To whom was 
Peter preaching on that occasion? To a vast multitude, most of 
them Jews, not all resident Jews, but many of them living in foreign 
cities and countries. Peter charged home upon them the murder or 
the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. He told them that they had mur- 
dered the Son of God. He demonstrated to them, in that remark- 
able sermon, that Jesus Christ was no less a personage than the Son 
of God. When they heard that, they were alarmed, and pricked in 
their hearts. Their state of alarm and uneasiness is not to be won- 
dered at. If you and I had been present at his crucifixion, and had 
joined in with the rabble who cried "His blood be upon us ! " our 
fears would have been excited, and our consciences alarmed, when 
convinced that he was the Son of God. When the Jews exclaimed, 
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" as they had publicly re- 
jected Jesus as the Christ, they were now required to publicly ac- 
cept him; and Peter responds: "Repent, and be baptized in the 
name of Jesus for the remission of sins;" but does he mean that 
baptism is in order to the remission of sins? Is not the baptism 
here made a test of the soundness of their repentance and of their 
faith? I tell you that there is here a demonstration and an exhi- 
bition of that faith that justifies. 

The fact of being baptized into the name of a man who had a few 
days before been executed as a malefactor, as a traitor, as a blas- 
phemer, as one attempting to supplant the religion of the Fathers, the 
religion of the Bible, the religion of God, is an evidence of the 
strongest faith in the validity of his claim. The brother talks some- 
times about taking up the cross in baptism. What is taking up the 
cross in baptism now, compared with this transaction? Why, my 
friends, the lives of these men were imperiled, their fortunes were 
endangered. The Jewish Sanhedrim, and the ecclesiastical authori- 
ties of the Church, were all against them. We find immediately 
that fear came upon every soul of them. They sold their property to 
prevent its being confiscated, and had all things in common, and 
were scattered in different directions. The very act of their receiving 
baptism in the name of Jesus exhibited the profound faith they had 
in him as the Christ ; the faith that justified and secured the pardon 
of their sins, for Peter says : " God purified their hearts by faith." 
If Peter taught, on this occasion, that baptism is a condition of par- 
don, did he teach it subsequently? Did he ever require any one, on 
any subsequent occasion, to be baptized before he received the remis- 
sion of his sins? I would like for the good brother to show where 
such a sermon was ever again preached by Peter. No, sir ; he did not 
teach that baptism is in order to pardon at Pentecost. 

In the next place, your attention is called to the baptism of Paul and 
his conversions. I want you to remember that Paul was the apostle 
of the Gentiles. He himself says, that he was set for the defense 



152 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of the truth. We will see what was the character of his conversion ; 
it is recorded in Acts ix : 17, 18 : "And Ananias went his way, and 
entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, ' Brother 
Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as 
thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, 
and be filled with the Holy Ghost,' and immediately there fell from 
his eyes as it had been scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and 
arose and was baptized." That is the first account given of it. Now 
the promise was that he should receive sight and the gift of the 
Holy Ghost. It is recorded that he received his sight, and it is 
most reasonable to suppose that he received the Holy Ghost at the 
same time, because both were contained in the same promise. Ac- 
cording to what we have already proven — Elder Moses E. Lard 
being judge — Paul was converted before he was baptized. Paul, in 
giving an account of this transaction, uses the following language, 
as addressed to him by Ananias: "xVnd now, why tarriest thou? 
arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name 
of the Lord." I will here apply a canon of criticism presented by a 
great and learned man, one who, I think, excels Elder Moses E. 
Lard — I mean Alexander Campbell. He says a present participle 
following an imperative verb indicates how the thing commanded is 
to be done ; as, for instance " cleanse the house sweeping it," " wash 
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." We will also read 
what Mr. C. says with reference to Paul's conversion: " The water 
of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of 
Christ really washes away our sins. Paul's sins were really par- 
doned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no 
formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins, until he washed 
them away in the water of baptism." Mr. Campbell is right in this 
place. Baptism either literally washes away sins, or it does it em- 
blematically. Will the gentleman take the position that it washes 
sins away literally? The idea is such an absurdity, that I do not 
think that he has the boldness to affirm it. If it only washes away 
sins emblematically, why may it not be performed after pardon as 
well as before pardon ? If baptism washes away sins emblematically 
only, that is the way in which Paul's sins were washed away. We agree 
with Mr. C. when lie affirms that his sins were really pardoned when 
he believed, when he received his sight, and the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. I will next call your attention to the commission which was 
given to Saint Paul by Jesus Christ: "But rise, and stand upon 
thy#feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make 
thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast 
seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee ; de- 
livering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom 
now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness 
to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may re- 



MR. FITCH'3 FIRST REPLY. 153 

eeive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanc- 
tified by faith that is in me." — Acts xxvi : 16-18. 

If God has but one system of pardon, then Paul, as the Apostle 
of the Gentiles, would preach the same doctrine to them that was 
preached to him; but does his commission contain the doctrine of 
baptism for the remission of sins? He was sent to the Gentiles to 
" open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from 
the power of (Satan unto God." How was this to be done? By bap- 
tism ? No ; but by faith in Christ ; for they were to receive forgive- 
ness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by 
faith in Jesus Christ. How did he preach ? Did he preach baptism 
for the remission of sins? Did he preach justification by faith, or 
by baptism ? Read the first six chapters of Romans, in which you 
will find an elaborate argument proving that justification is by faith 
without the deeds of the law. Read all his epistles, which make nearly 
one-fourth of the New Testament, and you will find the term bap- 
tize, used but once. Is it not remarkable that the man whom Christ 
commissioned and sent out to convert the Gentile world, should 
write thirteen epistles, nearly one-fourth of the New Testament, and 
use the word baptize but once? How does he then use it? "Christ 
sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." 

This is very singular. This man, appointed for the defense of the 
truth, commissioned to preach the Gospel in its purity to the Gen- 
tiles, the author of one-fourth of the New Testament, uses the term 
baptize but once, and then he thanks God that Christ did not send 
him to baptize, but to preach the Gospel. According to the theory 
of Mr. JB., baptism is a part of the Gospel, and no man can preach 
the entire Gospel without preaching baptism ; and yet he thanked 
God that he was not sent to baptize. This shows that baptism, in- 
stead of being an essential element of the Gospel, is merely an in- 
cidental. When did one of my Christian brethren ever say, " I 
thank God that he sent me not to baptize ? " They do not practice 
what they believe. Mr. Campbell taught that it was necessary to 
believe that baptism is for the remission of sins in order to its effi- 
cacy ; but when a member from another church joins Mr. B.'s church 
he does not rebaptize him if he has beeu immersed, when, according 
to the teaching of Mr. C, he is unpardoned. 

Mr. Brooks received into his church a man who came from the 
Baptist church, not long since; but that man professed to be par- 
doned before he was baptized, and did not believe when he was bap- 
tized, that baptism is for the remission of sins. Then, as a Baptist, 
he was pardoned; but, as a Reformer, if Mr. C.'s teaching be cor- 
rect, he is unpardoned. We would ask, Where is the necessity for 
all this ado about baptism for the remission of sins, when all the 
churches in the land baptize ? Where is the necessity for the exist- 
ence of the so-called "Christian Church," that calls so loudly for a 
union upon the basis of the Bible ? The union which they propose 



154 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

must be upon such terms as they themselves dictate. If Saint Paul 
was pardoned upon the condition of baptism, he did not preach the 
same kind of gospel to the Gentiles as that by which he was saved, 
for he preached justification by faith ; and he wrote five or six chap- 
ters in his "Epistle to the Romans," and two or three in his " Epis- 
tle to the Galatians," to prove that justification is by faith, without 
the deeds of the law ; for, if a man is justified by works, he hath 
whereof to boast. Baptism is a work, because physical action is re- 
quired in its performance. Kepentance and faith are not works, for 
they do not require jDxiysical action. If we are justified by faith, 
without works, then baptism is not a condition of pardon. What 
was Paul's manner of preaching to the Philippian jailer ? When the 
jail was shaken to its foundation, and the doors were thrown open, 
the affrighted jailer, believing that his prisoners had escaped, and 
knowing the punishment that aAvaited him, was about to perpetrate 
self-destruction, when Paul cried, with a loud voice, "Do thyself no 
harm ; for we are all here ! Then he called for a light, and sprang 
in, and came, trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and 
brought them out, and said : ' Sirs, what must I do to be saved ? ' " 
Did Paul answer and say, ' ' Be baptized, and wash away thy sins ? " 
Did he say " Be baptized for the remission of sins ? " Did Peter or 
Paul, or any other Apostle, ever enjoin baptism upon a Gentile, in 
order to the remission of his sins ? Paul said to the Philippian jailer: 
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." That 
was according to his commission. 

Again, Paul says : ' ' "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the 
Lord, shall be saved." He does not say, Whosoever shall call upon 
the name of the Lord when he has been baptized shall be saved. 

I wish this congregation to come and hear me this afternoon, for 
I have many difficulties to present which are connected with this sys- 
tem. I intend to show that any system which unites moral exercises 
and physical acts is defective, and must necessarily fail, in some in- 
stances. I do not believe that God, in his infinite wisdom, ever orig- 
inated such a scheme. Peter declares substantially the same doctrine 
at the house of Cornelius, and also on the day of Pentecost, that 
Paul taught, when he said " Yv r hosoever shall call upon the name 
of the Lord, shall be saved." The Scriptures teach that justification 
is by faith, without the deeds of the law. Mr. B.'s prediction that I 
would have something to say about justification by faith was corre'ct. 
Saint Paul teaches, in all his epistles, that we are justified by faith. 
Justification and remission of sins are equivalents : "And by him all 
that believe are justified from all things, from which he could not be 
justified by the law of Moses." — Acts xiii : 39. " To declare, I say, 
at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier 
of him that believeth in Jesus. Wherefore we conclude that a man 
is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law, seeing it is one God 
which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 155 

through faith." I have not told you what place baptism and repent- 
ance fill in the work of salvation, for I am not here for that purpose ; 
I am here simply to disprove the assumption that baptism is for the 
remission of sins. In Galatians iii : 8, 9, we read : "And the scrip- 
ture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, 
preached before the Gospel to Abraham, saying, In thee shall all na- 
tions be blessed." This identifies the Gospel with the Abrahamic cove- 
nant. The faith by which we are justified is the act of the heart or 
soul, that passes through all those things which are symbolical, and 
takes hold upon Jesus Christ himself, the only and all -sufficient sac- 
rifice for the sins of the world, and, through the merit of his atone- 
ment, realizes the efficacy of that blood that speaketh better things 
than the blood of Abel. My friend told us that only in the water 
of baptism do we meet the blood of Christ. I want him to prove it. 
His whole system professes to be based upon a " Thus saith the Lord." 
I want the scripture for this assertion. Faith is the receiving act ; 
Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world, and, through faith 
in him, we realize the forgiveness of our sins. In Galatians iii : 
22-24, we find the following language : "But the scripture hath con- 
cluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might 
be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept 
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterward be re- 
vealed. Wherefore tiie law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto 
Christ, that we might be justified by faith." This is the distinctive 
feature of the Reformation inaugurated by Luther, and of Protestant- 
ism. That German monk, when in Rome, desiring to ease his burdened 
conscience, commenced ascending upon his bare knees, along with 
other devotees of Romish superstition, the stairway of Pilate. As 
he ascended, a voice, as from heaven, said unto him, "The just shall 
live by faith." He immediately arose from his knees, descended to the 
street, left Rome, returned home, and commenced preaching the glori- 
ous doctrine, "The just shall live by faith," and thus inaugurated the 
Reformation. The doctrine of justification by faith is the distinguish- 
ing feature between Protestantism and Romanism. My good brother 
frequently inveighs against Romanism, but he stands identified with 
the Romish Church in teaching that baptism is for the remission of 
sins. He is, in this regard, more a Romanist than a genuine Prot- 
estant. We further object to the theory of baptism for the remis- 
sion of sins, because the Scriptures teach that we are saved by grace, 
and not by works. Works and grace are antipodals, and can not be 
blended ; for Paul says : " For by grace are ye saved through faith ; 
and if by grace, then it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no 
more grace : but if it be of works, then it is no more of grace ; oth- 
erwise work is no more work." 

(Time expired.) 



156 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend spoke, this morning, just as we predicted he would. He 
made a feeble effort, in one or two cases, to refute the arguments 
we urged, but spent the rest of his time in trying to prove — what, 
do you think? Justification by faith. I will not be positive ; but 
my conviction is, he did not use the expression "faith only" once. 
I do not remember to have heard it ; and others who listened are 
of the same opinion. He labored hard, and quoted a number of 
passages to prove that we are justified by faith — to all of which I 
heartily agree. 

I wish you to look for a moment at the position my friend occu- 
pied this morning. He boasted, last Monday, that he was on the 
negative, and that his business was to deny. He comes to-day to 
deny that baptism is for the remission of sins, and spends his hour 
in proving that men are justified by faith — a proposition I as fully 
indorse as he does. Now, did he allude to one passage of Scripture 
that contained the word " only"? He quoted various passages con- 
taining " faith." Much of his speech, then, needs no attention from 
me. He refuses to tell what baptism is for. My friend, I know, 
is not, logically, compelled to do so ; but I put this question to him 
as a man who desires this people to know the truth. I defy him to 
do it. He dare not do it. He knows full well that just so soon as 
he tells what baptism is for, he comes in conflict with his creed or 
Bible. That is the reason he will not answer the question. 

The gentleman thought he had found an exception to the rule of 
interpretation I gave : " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
blood hath eternal life." — John vi : 54. 

It is simply an affirmation, or proof of the canon, not an objec- 
tion. In this passage, the eating of the flesh of Christ is made a 
condition of salvation to the Christian. I as firmly believe that as 
I believe any thing else. A Christian man, who fails to do that, 
will be lost. Now, the rule applied to the Christian is as true as 
when applied to the sinner. There are certain things that Chris- 
tians must do, and, if they do them not, they are lost. 

He said the subject for discussion to-day was hardly important 
enough to deserve attention at his hands. Sincerely I pity the con- 
ception of my friend on this subject. If it be true that baptism is 
for the remission of sins, he that deliberately refuses to be baptized, 
is forever lost ; and yet the question is hardly worth considering ! 



mr. brooks's second address. 157 

And this, too, from the lips of a man who stands in the presence 
of his fellow-men to point them the way of life ! 

Again : He tells us that the salvation of the commission has ref- 
erence to eternal life ! Now, in one point of view, this gives more 
importance to baptism than we attach to it. It is to salvation from 
past sins that the passage alludes. My friend stands committed to 
the proposition, that the passage promises, not only salvation from 
past sins, but salvation in heaven. That is just as much as I want 
him to admit. Not only salvation from past sins, but salvation in 
heaven, is dependent, he tells us, on baptism. The greater always 
includes the less ; and hence, by this admission, the gentleman yields 
the question in controversy. 

The gentleman gravely asks the question, if baptism is for the 
remission of past sins, and the salvation in the commission is from 
past sins, what are we to do with those who sin after being bap- 
tized ? I have a profound respect for my friend. I believe he is as 
competent to the work before him as any brother in his Conference ; 
but I am astonished to hear this from his lips. Had I heard it from 
a schoolboy, I should not have been so much astonished. Does he 
not know the terms upon which a Christian is to be pardoned ? 
And does he not know that the laws of pardon to the alien and to 
the Christian are distinct? Why not tell a man, who sins as a 
Christian, to believe again, to go back and repent of the same sins, 
and then be baptized again ? Men repent once for sins past, and 
God pardons those sins. They are not required to repent again. 
Nor are they called upon to be baptized again for the remission of 
the same sins. The Apostle says: "If we confess our sins, Christ 
the Lord is faithful and just to forgive us our sins." The terms of 
pardon to the Christian are simply repentance, confession, and 
prayer. In the beginning of the third century, men could not see 
that baptism was for the remission of past sins only, and supposed 
it was lor the remission of all sins ; in order to avoid the supposed 
difficulty of my friend, they put it off until the last thing before 
death. Mr. Fitch is still amid the darkness of that epoch, and we 
leave him in his glory ; but, really, my friends, the man who reads 
his Bible, and studies God's word, ought to know better than to ask 
such a question. He wants to know how the sinner is to be par- 
doned. The sinner must repent, believe, and be baptized. The 
Christian must confess his sins before God, and pray to be forgiven. 

Again: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life." 
My friend quoted many passages like this. I told him, in the be- 
ginning, I believed this passage as sincerely as he. In this Scrip- 
ture, everlasting life is based upon the condition of faith mentioned 
in the passage. [And let me here call your attention to the l'act that 
my friend did not deny the authority of the canon. He said I got 
it from brother Lard ; but he did not question its correctness.] Faith 
is here named as a condition of salvation. Well, then, salvation 



158 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

absolutely depends upon faith. But, in the very words of God, 
salvation is made to depend upon baptism. Mr. Fitch says salva- 
tion is dependent upon faith. Why? Because it is named as a 
condition. Baptism is named as a condition of salvation ; therefore, 
according to Mr. Fitch, salvation is dependent on baptism. But I 
call your attention to Acts x : 43, which the gentleman quoted with 
great earnestness : 

" To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name, 
whosoever beiieveth in him shall receive remission of sins. AYhile 
Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which 
heard the word. And they of the circumcision, which believed, 
were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the 
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit. For they 
heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered 
Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, 
which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he com- 
manded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed 
they him to tarry certain days." 

The gentleman, before he gave us his account of the matter, read 
the forty-third verse: "To him give all the prophets witness, that 
through his name, whosoever beiieveth in him shall receive remission 
of sins." He sought to make the impression that the passage taught 
that remission of sins depended on faith alone. Now, let us see : 

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name 
whosoever beiieveth in him shall receive remission of sins." "Through 
his name," the prophet says. How is this to be done? The gen- 
tleman told us, the other day, when commenting upon the second of 
Acts, it was " by being baptized in his name." " They received re- 
mission of sins by being baptized in his name;" and yet he labored 
assiduously this morning to show that the second of Acts did not 
teach baptism for the remission of sins. This is a specimen of the 
logic with which my friend attempts to defend his position before 
this community. This, though, is the fault of Methodism, and 
not of Mr. Fitch. No living man can stand before tke discrep- 
ancies of this contradictory system and help contradicting himself 
from one day to another. One day he says baptism is for the re- 
mission of sins, and the next day he says baptism is not for the 
remission of sins, even though it be in the name of Christ. It was 
through the name of Christ they received remission : "And lie 
commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Why? 
Because it was in the name of Christ they were to receive remission 
of sins. But again: He said these persons were unquestionably 
converted before they were baptized. Well, I believe that. But 
he says that the terms "conversion" and "pardon" are synony- 
mous. Pardon is the act which takes place in the mind of the In- 
finite One, but conversion is the work done in and through the man. 
Now, he says these persons received the Holy Spirit before they 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS. 159 

were baptized, and, therefore, claims that they were pardoned before 
the}' were baptized. He takes the position that no man can receive 
the Holy Spirit until he is a converted man. The gentleman is un- 
fortunate again. I am satisfied that if he would read his Bible a 
little more, and that little thing he calls his Discipline less, he 
would know better what the former contained. I wonder whether 
the gentleman has ever read of Saul, and his messengers who proph- 
esied? Had not Saul the Spirit, notwithstanding all his folly and 
wickedness? Or has he ever read of the wicked prophet Balaam? 
and how the Spirit spoke through the very beast that he rode ? 
Did he never hear of* Caiaphas, and how, by the Spirit, he said, 
" Consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the 
people, and that the whole nation perish not," and yet, in a few hours 
thereafter, signed the death-warrant of the Son of God ? Does the 
gentleman deny the miraculous presence of the Spirit in these cases? 
But how easy it is to prove a proposition when you disregard the 
truth revealed. Cornelius and his friends spoke with tongues. It 
was the miraculous power of the Spirit with which they were pos- 
sessed, and they spoke just as Balaam's beast, and the prophets, and 
Saul, and Caiaphas spoke. I commend to him his Bible. 

Once more: He says I deny that the Spirit of God has any thing 
to do with the conversion of the sinner. I want to be charitable 
to my friend, but this is a severe draft upon my benevolence. 
Surely, brother Fitch knew better than that. I am almost ready 
to say that he knew better, and that it was just a lapsus Unguce. 

He tried, this morning, to make out two laws of conversion — one 
for the Gentile and one for the Jew, and yet quoted the passage : 
" He put no difference between them and us, purifying their 
hearts by faith." He quoted that to prove that there is a difference 
between them and us, and the very passage says, "He put no differ- 
ence between them and us;" they were pardoned all alike. The 
passage, as it falls from his lips, declares his position false. Will the 
gentleman tell us from whose lips this new dogma came? Where 
have we an-infimation that God gave a second law of pardon to the 
Gentile world? .Was it for this occasion he asserted it? 

The gentleman quoted a passage from Mr. Campbell's debate with 
McCalla. Now, I have only one remark to make upon this. I 
want to say to him, that when Mr. Campbell made -use of that 
language, he was a Baptist, and upon this subject the Baptists are 
as much in the dark as Mr. Fitch. I am not here to defend Mr. 
Campbell, as a Baptist, or even as a Christian simply; that is not 
my business this evening. 

He called your attention to First Corinthians. I desire to in- 
vite especial attention here. Surely, he was dreaming. He made 
Paul to say, " He thanked the Lord that God had not sent him to 
baptize." -'Paul never said any such thing since the world began. 
He simply never said it. My friend either did not know it, or he 



160 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

meant to misrepresent him. The fact is, he does not read his Bible 
enough to know what it contains. Let us hear what Paul did 
say: "Now this I say, that every one of you says I am of Paul ; 
and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of Christ. Is Christ 
divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in 
the name of Paul? / thank God that I baptized none of you, but 
Crisjms and Gains" [I thank God; why?] "Lest any should say 
I had baptized in my own name." And yet my friend built an 
argument on this to demonstrate that Paul thought so little of 
baptism that he rejoiced and thanked God that he had not been 
sent to baptize. I tell you, my friends, the mist of Methodism, 
once drawn over a man's eyes, is like a nightmare, from which even 
God's holy word itself can not arouse. Why did Paul thank God 
that he had baptized but few in the city of Corinth? Lest they 
should say he baptized in his own name, and build up a party, 
and call themselves Paulites. Suppose the Lord had sent a com- 
mission to my brother not to baptize, like he says he gave to Paul, 
would he ever baptize? I do not much beiieve he would. I 
would like for him to answer that question specifically. If he 
would not, does he imagine that the great Apostle of the Gentiles 
would have transcended his commission ? No. This was one part 
of Paul's work. And he rejoiced that he baptized none others in that 
city, only for the reason given. But my friend tells us the word 
baptized occurs but once in all of Paul's epistles. I am truly sorry 
for his knowledge of the word of God. Why, it occurs no less than 
three times in the passage he quoted. Oh, my soul ! what infat- 
uation is this! Was he dreaming this morning, or was he wild 
while talking to us? He had the Bible before him : why this reck- 
less declaration? The word baptize and the word baptism occur in 
his epistles at least fourteen times. Now, do you notice the im- 
pression he would have made upon this audience? that Paul never 
baptized, indeed that he thought so little of it that he seldom men- 
tioned baptism ; and yet, not less than fourteen times does he speak 
of it; yea, even tells us that Ave are saved by the washing of re- 
generation. But enough of this. 

He says we are justified by faith without the deeds of the law. In 
what sense are we justified by faith without the deeds of the law? 
No man can be justified in the sight of the law, abstractly consid- 
ered. We can only be saved at last through the boundless mercy 
of the infinite God. But that mercy comes to sinners on conditions 
laid down by Christ himself. These are faith, repentance, and 
baptism. All the passages Mr. Fitch has read from Romans had 
reference to those who were trying to force the ceremonies of the 
Jewish law upon the Church — trying to make them obey that law — 
and he wanted to show the Romans that no man could be justified 
by the deeds of that law. Paul is teaching them that they can only 
be saved through faith in Christ. Do you suppose a man who 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS. 161 

sincerely believes the Gospel would hesitate to obey God's com- 
mands? The thing is an absurdity. 

Again : He calls our attention to Acts xvi, the case of the jailer. 
Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be 
saved, and thy house." What a pity my friend did not read on a 
little further. He would have found that the jailer, in penitence, 
washed the stripes of the Apostle, and was baptized the same hour 
of the night. The jailer was not much like my friend. The logic 
of the gentleman is just this : Paul knew what was necessary to save 
a man, and he merely told the jailer to believe; therefore faith is 
the only condition of salvation. Ananias knew what was necessary 
to save a man, and simply told Paul to arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away his sins ; therefore, baptism is the only condition of sal- 
vation. I leave these two cases, and the logic of each, with my 
distinguished friend. 

He directed us to Romans x: 13: "For whosoever shall call 
upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." 

My friend went to work to overturn the idea that we were justified 
by baptism, by showing that we were justified by calling on the 
name of the Lord. How is a man justified, or saved, by calling 
on the name of the Lord ? Simply by speaking the name of God ? 
Is that all ? Or is it not by calling upon him with that spirit that 
will joyfully obey God in all that he commands ? Let us hear 
the Savior himself: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, 
Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the 
will of my Father which is in heaven." — Matthew vii. The will 
of God is that every believer shall be baptized. We believe those 
who refuse to be baptized may call on the name of the Lord for- 
ever, and they will never be saved. Will my friend deny that to be 
baptized is the will of the heavenly Father? Surely not. 

But, again : Only in baptism we come to the blood of Christ. 
He was very much surprised at the thought that I had uttered 
this sentiment. No man comes into the blood of Christ until he 
comes into the death of Christ. Therefore, says Paul, "We are 
buried with him by baptism into death." 

{Time Expired.) 
14 



162 BR00K9 AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

I AM no longer at a loss to understand why it is that the brother 
has not been able to understand the doctrines of the Methodist Dis- 
cipline, or the Bible, because he invariably fails to understand me. 
lie told you that I said that baptism, or that the remission of sins, 
was a question that was hardly of sufficient importance to be debated. 
That is not exactly the way in which I stated the question. 

I said that baptism for the remission of sins was a question hardly 
worthy to be debated, from the fact that all the churches in the land 
baptize. If, by preaching, we can get the people to believe the Gospel, 
and repent of their sins, as a matter of course, when they come to 
unite with the Church, they will be baptized, and if baptism is for 
the remission of sins, their sins will be remitted; so there is no ne- 
cessity for controversy between the churches with reference to this 
matter. 

I wish again to explain the difference between me and the brother. 
He contends that a believing penitent must actually be baptized be- 
fore he is pardoned, while I contend that when a man believes on 
Jesus with all his heart, he is pardoned. I believe this, because 
Christ taught that "Whosoever believeth on the Lord Jesus Christ, 
shall be saved." It may here be necessary for me to make a remark 
to this effect : that no man ever exercises the faith that saves without 
having repentance. The two are inseparably connected, and you never 
find one without the other — never. But you may find faith and 
repentance without baptism. He joins these all together as con- 
ditions of pardon — faith, repentauce, and baptism — and yet he is not 
able to find all these things in the New Testament joined together in 
the same passage. Is not that remarkable, that God Almighty 
would give a law of pardon, and give one part of it here, and an- 
other part there ; one condition here, and another condition yonder ? 
If all these are really conditions, it does seem to me that they would 
have been all connected together. Yet we can not find a passage 
that has them all together. The brother can not find a "Thus saith 
the Lord," for making faith, repentance, and baptism the conditions 
of pardon. 

This morning the brother, in his speech, said he wanted^ to know 
whether I believed a man could be saved who refused to obey the 
Gospel. Of course I do not. Neither does any other intelligent 
Christian believe that a man who persistently refuses to obey the 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 163 

Gospel can be saved. Who ever conceived such an idea? Who 
ever advanced such a doctrine ? I thank nay good brother for being 
charitable enough to admit that some of us Methodists, those who 
are honest, ma} 7 possibly be saved, notwithstanding the fact that we 
have never complied with the condition which he thinks so necessary. 
Like his eminent friend and brother, Mr. Campbell, I suppose he 
hands us over to the mercies of God, along with heathens, idiots, and 
infants. He called your attention to John iii : 5 : " Except a man 
be born of water, and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the king- 
dom of God," and complained of the "Methodist Discipline," be- 
cause, in some of its old editions, this passage reads, ' ' except any 
one," instead of "except a man." I call upon him to show the 
word ' ' anthropos, " in the original. I have no doubt but that he 
thought he had found a difficulty that I could neither explain nor 
remove. The difficulty is not in the Scripture, nor in the Discipline, 
but in his mind. 

And I never saw any of his brethren that could understand that 
litt.e book called the "Discipline of the Methodist Church." Elder 
Ben Franklin, in his debate with Mr. Merrill, in the city of Ports- 
mouth, Ohio, continued to quote the reading of the old edition. 
Like my good brother, he thought it very objectionable. But, my 
friends, there is no difficulty here with us. We believe and teach 
that the kingdom of God is of a twofold character — visible and in- 
visible. By the birth of the Spirit, we enter into Christ, according 
to the teaching of Saint Paul, when. he says : " By one Spirit are ye 
all baptized into one body." By the birth, or baptism of water, we 
are introduced into the visible church. That explains the matter. 
Will my friend deny the twofold character of the kingdom of God? 
Will he affirm that the visible organization, into which water baptism 
introduces us, is all that is included in the term kingdom? If so, 
then there is nothing spiritual about it. If it has a spiritual charac- 
ter at all, that spiritual character must be different from that which 
is literal, into which literal w T ater baptism introduces us. He next 
called our attention to 1 Peter iii: 21 : "The like figure whereunto 
even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

I was very much amused at the gentleman's criticism upon this 
passage. He told us that Noah's salvation by w T ater, of which the 
Apostle is here writing, is the type of our salvation by baptism; that 
Noah's passage through the water, in the ark, was a type of which 
our baptism is the antitype. Is not that noteworthy ? If that be the 
case, the brother ought to give up immersion. 

Noah was never immersed. The water of baptism, in his case, came 
down from heaven — was poured down upon him ; and if this trans- 
action is a type of our baptism, then he must, give up immersion, and 
adopt our Methodist mode of pouring. But that is not the meaning 



164 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of the Apostle. As Noah's salvation by water is the type of our sal- 
vation, by the resurrection of Christ, so baptism is a type of our sal- 
vation. It is a figurative salvation. I have no doubt that he thought 
I would deny the teaching of this passage. I admit every word of 
it. The Apostle says we are saved by baptism, and brings up the 
case of Noah to illustrate it. How was Noah saved by water ? In 
the sense of being pardoned ? Not at all. Why, he preached right- 
eousness for one hundred and twenty years previous to that time. 
You will remember it is the remission of sins by baptism that we are 
debating. Noah was not saved by water, in the sense of pardon, for 
he had been a preacher of righteousness one hundred and twenty 
years ; and is it not unreasonable to suppose that he was unpardoned 
during all this time ? If his salvation by water is a type of our sal- 
vation by baptism, then we are not saved by baptism, in the sense 
of pardon, for water did not save Noah, in that sense. Water baptism 
does not save us from our sins. Noah was not saved from immediate 
death by water, for this was effected by the ark ; so baptism does not 
save us from physical death. In what sense did water save Noah? 
When we have ascertained that fact, we may know how, or in what 
sense, " baptism doth now save us." By water he was saved from 
that ungodly people, in the sense and fact of being separated from 
them ; so our baptism saves us, in the sense of separating us from 
the world, and bringing us into covenant with God. It separates 
and distinguishes us from the ungodly world. By receiving baptism, 
we obey that command of God which says, "Come out from among 
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord." Water baptism is the 
figure of our salvation, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The 
Apostle says that baptism is not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh — is not the act by which the moral pollution of our nature is 
removed — but it is simply the answer of a good conscience. How 
is it the answer of a good conscience ? God commands a man to 
be baptized, and it is his duty to obey God. When obedience is 
rendered in this case, the conscience approves the act ; and this ap- 
proval is the answer of the conscience. With reference to this mat- 
ter, I have as clear an 'answer of conscience as any immersionist. 
Baptism does not save us, in the sense of putting away the filth 
of the flesh, nor in the sense of remitting our sins, but, simply as 
a figure, it represents our salvation by the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ, 

The brother wanted to know, this morning, if a man who had 
simply been baptized by pouring or sprinkling, could say he had 
been washed. I desire to remind him, that in quoting these pas- 
sages to prove that water baptism is for the remission of sins, if he 
takes the ground that baptism means to wash, he gives up his spe- 
cific idea that it means to dip, and only to dip. This is a point, 
however, that we will contest to-morrow. If the washing of regen- 
eration, which is expressed by a generic term, has reference to 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 165 

baptism, then away goes his specific idea that baptizo never has but 
one meaning, is always a specific term. You will remember that, on 
one occasion, Christ washed the feet of his disciples, to teach them 
a lesson of humility. Peter, at first, refused to be washed ; but, when 
he learned the import of the washing, he not only allowed his feet to 
be washed, but desired to have his whole body washed. Christ told 
him that in washing his feet he was clean every whit. It was a 
symbolical washing ; and by the washing of the feet, the washing of 
the whole body was symbolized. So it is in baptism. Baptism is 
nothing but a symbolical washing, and a gill of water is just as em- 
blematical as Lake Superior — is just as effective to produce an em- 
blematic washing — is just as symbolical as all the water you could 
apply to a man from now until doomsday. 

My friend next called your attention to Balaam and Saul, as 
examples of men who had received the miraculous gifts of the Holy 
Ghost without being pardoned. But has he proved that they were 
not pardoned? I will venture to say that Balaam was just about as 
good as Simon Magus. Simon Magus wanted to purchase the power 
of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands, because 
he saw he could make it the source of much gain ; and Balaam de- 
sired to curse Israel, in order to obtain the reward offered by Balak. 
My friend contends that Simon Magus was a pardoned man, but de- 
nies that Balaam was pardoned, when their cases are exactly alike. 
I want the Scripture proof of the fact, that Balaam and Saul were 
unpardoned when they had the prophetic spirit. I was detected 
in an error, which I willingly confess and correct. I said Paul 
thanked God, that Christ sent him not to baptize. I will read the 
exact language : " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but 
Crispus and Gains." "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the Gospel." 

I just confounded the two passages. He does affirm that " Christ 
sent him not to baptize," and he does thank God that he had only 
baptized a few persons. I reaffirm, that Paul uses the word baptize 
but once in his writings. I would like for my friend to show us 
where it is to be found again in any of his thirteen Epistles. I defy 
him to find it. It occurs but once, and in the following passage: 
'•Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." I 
will show the gentleman that I have read my Bible, and that I 
know what I am talking about. I repeat, St. Paul used the word 
baptize but once, and then he says : " Christ sent me not to baptize." 
My friend said that Paul quit baptizing in that place because some 
were saying that they were baptized unto Paul. I want to see the 
proof. Paul, on one occasion, wrote as follows: "Some indeed 
preach Christ even of envy and strife ; some also of good will; the 
one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add af- 
fliction to my bonds; but the other of love, knowing that I am set 
for the defense of the Gospel. What then ? Notwithstanding every 



166 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

way, whether in pretense, or in truth, Christ is preached ; and I 
therein do rejoice, yea, and I will rejoice." 

Paul was willing for men to preach Christ in any way, whether 
of envy, or strife, or of pretense, so he was preached. If baptism 
is a condition of pardon, it is just as important to baptize as it is to 
preach Christ ; for no man can be saved without baptism, any more 
than he can be saved without Christ. If the brother's doctrine is 
true, then his charitable opinion about those who have never been 
immersed is not worth the ink required to write it. If his theory 
is true, baptism is just as essential in the economy of salvation as 
Christ himself. If Paul did not care how Christ was preached, 
whether of envy, or of strife, or of pretense, so he was preached — and 
could rejoice in the fact — is it not a little singular that he quit bap- 
tizing, because some one said he baptized in his own name? Is it 
not strange that he quit saving the people for such a reason as this? 
He, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, sent to dispel the darkness 
that enshrouded their minds, and to bring them to the light, liberty, 
and power of the kingdom of God, faltered in the great work, be- 
cause some fellow accused him of baptizing in his own name! 

Because I get up here, and oppose the dogma of exclusive im- 
mersion, will my brother cease to immerse? If I should accuse him 
of immersing in his own name — in the name of Elder John A. 
Brooks — would he be likely to give up his opinion and practice? 
No, sir. His zeal must be greater than that of Paul. 

When my time expired this morning, I was showing that there 
are but two ways in wmich a man can be saved. He must either 
be saved by works, through legal obedience, or by grace, through 
faith. Works and grace can not be united, or combined, without 
impairing each other; for Paul says: "And if by grace, then 
it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace ; but if it 
be of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more 
work." Is it not plain, from what we have just read, that we are 
either saved by works or by grace, and not by both co-working? 
"We will hear Paul again, Rom. iv : 16: "Therefore it is of faith, 
that it might be by grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to 
all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also 
which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is the father of us all." 

The Apostle assigns two reasons why the plan of salvation is ar- 
ranged as we find it. He says : " It is of faith, that it might be by 
grace." He had before affirmed that " we are saved by grace," and 
now he adds, that, in order to be saved by grace, w r e must be saved 
by, or through, faith. Now, if baptism is a condition of our salva- 
tion, or pardon, then we are not saved by grace, for baptism is a 
work. But Paul says: "We are saved by grace through faith." 
Again he says: "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reck- 
oned of grace, but of debt. But to him that w T orketh not, but be- 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 167 

lieveth on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for 
righteousness." 

The second reason that the Apostle assigns for faith being made the 
condition of pardon is " to the end the promise might be sure to all 
the seed ; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which 
is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all." Let us try 
this system of salvation by grace through faith, in contrast with a 
work-system, and see which is the better adapted to secure pardon 
to all the seed under any and all circumstances. Suppose that faith, 
repentance, and baptism were the conditions of pardon, or the remis- 
sion of sins. Here is a man traveling through an uninhabited re- 
gion of country. As he is passing through a forest, a limb is dis- 
lodged from a tree, and falls upon him, and crushes his body in such 
a manner that he is unable to proceed on his journey. The man 
becomes conscious of the fact that he is in the presence of death. 
There he lies, upon the threshold of the other world, a repentant 
sinner. He desires to be saved, but he remembers having read in 
the word of God, that faith, repentance, and baptism are the condi- 
tions of salvation. Can he be saved ? Does the system, or the plan 
proposed by the brother, make ihe p.-omise sure to him ? There is no 
water there. There is no minister, or priest, or layman there to 
apply the water, even if it were at hand. And there, alone, that 
penitent and believing man, with a faith that reaches out and takes 
hold of Christ the Savior, goes down to hell, for the simple reason 
that God had devised a scheme of salvation that was defective. 
But faith being the condition, as long as consciousness remains, as 
long as the man has control of his reason, as long as the power of 
volition remains within him, he can lift the eye of faith to Calvary, 
and see the blood that was poured out for his redemption. The Holy 
Spirit is there to apply the blood, and he may be cleansed and saved. 
"Faith makes the promise sure to all the seed." I tell you, my 
Christian friends, that baptism is not a condition of pardon, and will 
not save a man under all circumstances. 

How many, during the late fratricidal war, that swept over the 
land and desolated our homes, and clothed so many of our citizens 
in the habiliments of mourning — how many of our noble young men 
who had been trained by godly parents, went down to the jaws of 
death ! According to our system, according to the doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith in Jesus Christ, we may hope that many of them 
were saved. They died upon the field of battle, and Mr. B.'s system 
excludes every one of them, who was not baptized. This doctrine 
is contrary to the genius of our holy religion — contrary to the teach- 
ings of God's word. It fails to make the promise suro to all the seed. 
Faith is the only condition that can allow it to be by the grace of 
God, and that brings salvation to every man under all circumstan- 
ces, and in all the varied conditions of life. Does not the Apostle 



168 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

say : " If there had been a law which could have given life, verily 
righteousness should have been by (the) law?" 

Baptism is just as much a work of law as circumcision, or the offer- 
ing of a sacrifice ; just as much a work as the bringing. of a goat or a 
bullock to the altar. One is just as much a legal performance as the 
other. Had it been possible, under the circumstances, to save man 
by the performance of physical acts — by legal obedience, then doubt- 
less this would have been the way. But no law, which could have 
given life, was ever given. And besides, every perfect law requires 
perfect obedience, which man, in his depraved condition, is incapable 
of rendering. It was impossible for man to be saved by legal obedi- 
ence, and the law was given for the express purpose of bringing him 
to Christ, that he might be saved by faith in him. 

We object to the theory that baptism is for the remission of past 
sins, because it contradicts many plain, unequivocal passages of 
Scripture. It is said that " we are justified by faith ; " "faith is im- 
puted to us for righteousness." It is nowhere recorded in the Bible 
that we are justified by baptism, or that our baptism is imputed to us 
for righteousness. My friend told us this morning, that baptism 
was equally a condition with faith. I suppose, then, it is equally a 
condition with repentance. Suppose, then, a man exercises faith, and 
goes no farther. Does God pardon him one-third ? Suppose, then, 
he adds to his faith repentance, or reformation ; having complied 
with two-thirds of the conditions, is he two-thirds pardoned and one- 
third unpardoned ? And if he dies unbaptized, what is his condition 
in the eternal world ? Is he two-thirds saved and one-third damned ? 
I can present scores of passages to prove that a man is justified by 
faith; and when Paul affirms that we are justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law, he excludes every thing from being a condition 
of justification but faith. If my good brother will produce one pas- 
sage that says that we are justified by baptism, or that baptism is 
imputed to us for righteousness, I will accept his theory. 

(Time Expired.) 



ME. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 169 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Before I proceed to review the speech which the gentleman has 
just made, I wish to finish the argument, as I have but one more 
speech to make. 

My last argument, in favor of the proposition I affirm to-day, shall 
be drawn from the Discipline of my friend's Church, and from the 
teachings of the little book in my hand, called "Doctrinal Tracts; 
A collection of interesting tracts, explaining several important 'points of 
Scripture" They are printed by order of the General Conference. 
But I read first from the Discipline, page 151 : 

"Then the minister shall speak to the persons to be baptized on 
this wise : ' Well-beloved, who are come hither, desiring to receive 
holy baptism, ye have heard how the congregation hath prayed that 
our Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to receive you, and bless you, 
to release you of your sins, to give you the kingdom of heaven, 
and everlasting life.'" 

We have here a candidate about to be baptized, and the preacher 
says : " Ye have heard how the congregation hath prayed that 
the Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to receive you, to release you 
from your sins." Now, what can this mean, upon this occasion, un- 
less all this is to be accomplished through baptism? I boldly af- 
firm that no mortal man can make any thing else out of this lan- 
guage. That is j List exactly what it means. And again, the minis- 
ter says: " O, merciful God, grant that the old Adam in these per- 
sons may be so buried that the new man may be raised up in them." 

This is one of the passages in the Discipline which has not yet 
been remodeled. It is in harmony with the word of God, as when 
it was first made it was intended to be. In that day, his church be- 
lieved in immersion. Hence, they say, " God grant that the old 
Adam in these persons may be so buried [in immersion] that the 
new man may be raised up in them." Now, if this is not baptism 
for the remission of sins, I do not know what is. When they bap- 
tize, they pray "that the Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to 
receive you, and bless you, to release you of your sins, to give you 
the kingdom of heaven, and everlasting life." Again: "Almighty, 
ever-living God, whose most dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ, for 
the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of his most precious side, 
both water and blood, and gave commandment to his disciples that 
they should go teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of 
15 



170 BROOKS AND FITCn DEBATE. 

the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, regard, we be- 
seech thee, the supplications of thy congregation, and grant that 
the persons now to be baptized may receive the fullness of thy grace." 

They have not received it yet. Have those who. are pardoned 
and justified, not received the fullness of God's grace? Then what 
means this expression ? But to be more explicit here, I will refer 
you to the " Doctrinal Tracts." Remember, this work, from which 
I now proceed to read, is published by order of the General Con- 
ference. 

I read briefly from Wesley, page 246 : " What are the benefits we 
receive by baptism ? is the next point to be considered. And the 
first of these is, the washing away the guilt of original sin, by the ap- 
plication of the merits of Christ's death. That we are all born under 
the guilt of Adam's sin, and that all sin deserves eternal misery, 
was the unanimous sense of the ancient Church, as it is expressed 
in the Xinth Article of our own." 

Again : "He gave himself for the Church, that he might sanctify 
and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word (Epli. v : 25, 
26), namely, in baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification." 

My friend tells you the Bible nowhere says that we are justified 
by baptism, but the General Conference of the Methodist Church 
says we are thus justified. If the Bible does not say so, are you 
not a little astonished that his Conference should say so, and pub- 
lish the declaration to the world? I am sorry for your Conference, 
sir, if you are right. 

Again: "Agreeably to this, our Church prays, in the baptismal 
office, that the person to be baptized may be washed and sanctified 
by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered from God's wrath, receive 
remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting benediction of his heav- 
enly washing;" and declares, in the rubric, at the end of the office: 
"It is certain, by God's word, that children, who are baptized, dy- 
ing before they commit actual sin, are saved." 

Here is the very language of our proposition. Now, I want you 
to remember that I am proving my positions by my friend, and 
not by tho.-e who believe with me. Again : 

" By baptism, we are admitted into the Church, and consequently, 
made members of Christ, its head. The Jews were admitted into 
the Church by circumcision, so are the Christians by baptism. For 
'as many as are baptized into Christ,' in his name, 'have' thereby 
1 put on Christ' (Gal. iii: 27); that is, are mystically united to Christ, 
and made one with him.'' 

Once more: " By baptism, we, who were, ' by nature, children of 
wrath,' are made the children of God. And this regeneration, which 
our Church, in so many places, ascribes to baptism, is more than 
barely being admitted into the Church, though commonly connected 
therewith; being 'grafted into the body of Christ's Church, we are 
made the children of God by adoption and grace.' This is founded 



mr. brooks's third address. 171 

on the plain words of our Lord : ' Except a man be born again of 
water and of the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God ' 
(John iii: 5). By water, then, as a means, the water of baptism, we 
are regenerated, or born again; whence, it is also called by the 
Apostle, ' the washing of regeneration.' Our Church, therefore, as- 
cribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself hath done." 
Thus speaks Mr. Wesley and the General Conference. Yet my 
friend says he does not ascribe salvation to baptism at all, but the 
Conference and Wesley do. Once more : 

' ' Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto ; if we 
repent, believe, and. obey the Gospel ; supposing this, as it admits us 
into the church here, so into glory hereafter." This is where my 
friend got the idea that baptism admits us into the kingdom herealter. 
But now we have a note added by the authority of the Conference, 
which reads: "That Mr. Wesley, as a clergyman of the Church 
of England, was originally a high churchman, in the fullest sense, is 
well known. When he wrote this treatise, in the year 1756, he 
seems still to have used some expressions, in relation to the doctrine 
of baptismal regeneration, which we at this day should not prefer. 
Some such, in the judgment of the reader, may, perhaps, be found 
under this second head. This last sentence, however, contains a 
guarded corrective. It explains also the sense in which we believe 
Mr. W. intended much of what goes before to be understood." The 
italics are mine. 

The substance of the declaration of the General Conference is that 
they ' ' should not prefer some of these expressions that Mr. Wesley 
used." " This last sentence, however, contains a guarded corrective. 
It explains also the sense in which we believe Mr. W. intended much 
of what goes before to be understood." Let us read this last sen- 
tence again : 

" Baptism doth now save us, if we live answerable thereto; if we 
repent, believe, and obey the Gospel ; supposing this, as it admits us 
into the church here, so into glory hereafter. " 

That is just exactly what I believe and teach, except the last ex- 
pression, " so into glory hereafter." " Baptism doth now save us." 
So say Mr. Wesley and the Methodist Conference ; and yet my 
friend tells us there is not a word of authority for it in the word of 
God. This is the consistency of the church which my friend repre- 
sents ; but, as I told you, it is the fault of the system, and not of the 
man. It is a contradictory thing from beginning to end. It has no 
consistency. The church and creed of my friend are with me on 
this question. 

Only in baptism we come to the blood of Christ: "Know ye 
not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were 
baptized into his death ?" — Rom. vi : 3. 

\Ve are baptized into the death of Christ. Can any man reach the 
blood of Christ until he comes into his death ? Does my friend 



172 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

understand me to say that, absolutely, literally, the blood is in the 
water ? Surely not. He certainly understands me to teach, with Dr. 
Clarke, that we are buried in baptism into the likeness of his death. 
There must be some ordinance in which man comes into relation 
with God, that he may cleanse him and release him from his sins. 
In baptism he comes into the death of Christ symbolically, and this 
is the point at which his sins are remitted. 

" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins ; and you shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit." — Acts ii : 38. 

In regard to this passage, my friend did about as I thought he 
would do. I told you he would attempt tore-translate. I told you, 
also, that " eis " had a great many definitions. Mr. Fitch quoted a 
great many of these, but did he tell you by which one he would 
translate the word in this place? Not a bit of it. He knows it can 
not be translated by all of them, and that it must be translated by 
one of them. We put the question to him again : by what will you 
translate? I defy him to tell us. But he tells us, in reference to this 
passage, that the Spirit nowhere else, in all the word of God, makes 
the remission of sins depend upon baptism. The Spirit uses the ex- 
pression but this one time only. The Lord indeed said, " Repent and 
be baptized for the remission of sins." " But he only said it once ;" 
that is all(?) That's a very small matter, is it not ? Because, forsooth, 
he said it but once, I will trample it under my feet and spurn it as 
an unholy thing. God said it just once. Yes, God said, just once, 
" Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return," and weeping mil- 
lions have, from that day to this, i'elt every chill of the cold, dark 
grave. God once said, " In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die." Eve ate the apple, and the whole world suffered 
the penalty. Satan said, " Thou shalt not surely die." Again, God 
said, " Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." My friend 
says, "Baptism is surely not for the remission of sins." Oh, my 
soul ! not for my right arm would I venture it. Woe be to him 
who would trample, even what God has said only once, under foot, 
unless he repent of his sins ! If the great God speaks but once, that 
is enough ; I will bow to his mandate, if it be but one breath from 
the lips of the Living One. 

He cavils about the word for. He confesses that it may mean for, 
but he tells us there are kindred expressions, in which it has not ihis 
usage. He had a man hung for stealing, and a great many other 
expressions like that, but the question is, what does "for" mean in this 
passage? Here were the murderers of the Son of God, their hands 
trickling in the blood of the innocent One, covered all over with the 
gore of Calvary, and standing in the presence of him who was 
speaking in the person, and by the authority of heaven's King. 
Just Heavens! they had murdered the Messiah. They cried out, 
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And the Apostle replies, 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 173 

" Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the'remission of sins." Do you think these people under- 
stood what Peter meant by the expression "eis"? Repent, ye mur- 
derers, reeking in the blood of your crucified Savior ! Repent and 
be baptized for the remission of sins ! And yet, my friend will cavil 
about an expression so plain as this. I only ask, my countrymen, that 
you go and stand with these murderers of the Son of God, and you 
will know what Peter meant. 

Paul received sight and the Holy Spirit before baptism — another 
clear case. Well, grant it all. Yet, though he had received his 
sight, and the Holy Spirit had fallen upon him, still Ananias says, 
" Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins." Was Ananias 
trifling with Paul ? Are we to conclude that Paul's sins Avere re- 
mitted when the Spirit fell upon him ? What meant the inspired 
preacher, then, when he said, "Arise and be baptized, and wash 
away your sins"? That Paul had sins to be washed away, will not 
be questioned. No man will question that ; else, Ananias stultifies 
himself, and, in doing so, stultifies the Spirit of God. Were these 
Paul's past sins, or his future sins ? My friend will not presume 
to say future sins can be remitted in baptism. Then the matter is 
beyond all cavil and question ; and I am astonished that there should 
be a man on earth who would pause to raise such a question. Had 
I a creed that impelled me to this course, I would trample it under 
my feet as the very dust of the earth. Bind myself to any thing that 
thus stultifies my reason! Never! Never! 

I desire to read a passage, for the especial benefit of my friend. 
He tells us that faith and repentance are inseparably connected, and 
that all who have faith are pardoned. The passage I refer to, is to 
be found in John xii: 42. Now, I wish my friend to come square 
up to this passage. He says that when a man believes, he is that 
moment a pardoned man. Wlien a man believes, lie is a pardoned 
man! I most emphatically deny it. Now, we will see which is 
right : "Nevertheless, among the chief rulers, also many believed on 
him ; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they 
should be put out of the synagogue ; for they loved the praise of men 
more than the praise of God." These men believed ; does my friend 
say they were pardoned ? The Savior said, ' ' If you will not confess 
me before men, I will not confess you before my Father." 

That they believed we know, because the Spirit says they believed ; 
but, believers as they were, they loved the praise of men more than 
the praise of God. Now, my friends, how plain and simple are the 
teachings of this book of God, if we are willing to be guided by 
them! 

He gives up the whole question, when he says the willfully diso- 
bedient will be lost. Of course, I do not mean to say, that he who 
is necessarily hindered from obeying any command of God will be 
lost ; but when the gentleman finds a man in all the earth thus hin- 



174 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

dered, then he may find an argument here. My friend simply yields 
the whole question in this admission. 

"None can enter enter the kingdom of God except they be born 
again." I alluded to a change in the Discipline. The point I made 
was to show them that the expression "none" misrepresented the 
Savior. He tells us that "anthropos" is not in the original. True, 
but the Greek particle " tis" can not be rendered ''none." Such a 
rendering would simply be false to the word of God. It may be 
rendered, " Except one, a man or individual, be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he can not enter the kingdom of God." The Discipline 
used to have it, the Savior says "none" can enter the kingdom. 
This the Savior never said, and I rejoice to see our friends coming 
to the truth. 

He invites our attention to 1 Peter iii : 21 : " The like figure 
whereunto even baptism doth now also save us (not the putting away 
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. " The gentleman questions 
my interpretation of the passage. He thinks I am not as capable to 
interpret the Scriptures as some others. I wish to give him the com- 
ment of Dr. Watson on this passage. The doctor was a member of 
his church, and a distinguished writer in many respects. He says : 
" It is thus that we see how St. Peter preserves the correspondence 
between the act of Noah in preparing the ark as an act of faith, by 
which he was justified, and the act of submitting to Christian bap- 
tism, ivhich is also an act of faith, in order to the remission of sins, 
or the obtaining a good conscience before God." Again : " The whole 
passage can only be consistently taken to teach us that baptism is 
the outward sign of our entrance into God's covenant of mercy, and 
that when it is an act of true faith it becomes an instrument of salva- 
tion, like that act of faith in Noah, by which, when moved with 
fear, he 'prepared an ark to the saving of his house,' and survived 
the destruction of an unbelieving world." — Theo. Inst, p. 630. 

I wonder if the gentleman is any better satisfied with this authority? 

The gentleman desired to know if I could prove that Balaam, 
and Saul, and Caiaphas were unpardoned men. I wonder if the 
ass that Balaam rode was pardoned? What think you, Mr. Fitch? 
When the gentleman answers that question, I will attempt to answer 
his question, so far as Saul and Balaam are concerned. One thing 
I know, and so stated, that Caiaphas, with murder in his heart, 
said it was better for one man to die, than that all the people should 
perish. Does he tell me that Caiaphas was a pardoned man ? Cer- 
tainly not, in the sense of the word of God, as expressed in the 
passages read to-day. They were bad men. Balaam was a bad 
man, for he tried to curse the people of God; Saul was a bad man, 
for he disobeyed God ; and Caiaphas was a bad man, for he signed 
the death-warrant of Christ, and put him to death. 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 175 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The brother has intimated that we are rather slow in hunting 
up our materials. I can explain that to him. When my antagonist 
meets me upon the land, I know what sort of weapons to meet him 
with, and where to make my attacks ; but when he takes to the wa- 
ter, as he sometimes does, and sinks down into the deep, out of sight, 
and then rises where I am not looking for him, I am not exactly pre- 
pared for him. 

With reference to the extract which he read from the ' ' Methodist 
Discipline," I will simply say that the construction which he put upon 
it was a perversion. It does not teach that ; and there is not an in- 
telligent Methodist who believes it does so teach. With reference 
to those doctrinal tracts, and that which he read from them, I will 
make a similar reply to the one which he made to a quotation which 
I read this morning from Alexander Campbell. AVesley was an Epis- 
copalian at the time he wrote that language. What does this mean ? 
Simply that we love and honor John Wesley, and the General Con- 
ference wanted to preserve all his writings; therefore they directed 
that these tracts should be published, although many things are con- 
tained in them which they did not indorse. But they did not wish 
to exclude the objectionable parts. You will observe that the editor 
appends a note, saying that these views are not received by the Church. 
I told the brother, the other day, that no intelligent Methodist be- 
lieves every thing that John Wesley wrote. He was a high-church- 
man, at one time in life, and wrote a great many things which he did 
not afterward indorse himself. If Mr. B. wants to know what Wes- 
ley believed and taught upon this subject in the after part of Ins life, 
let him read his sermon on "Justification by Faith." 

I shall now proceed .with my objections to the theory that baptism 
is a condition of pardon. I do not object to the expression "for the 
remission of sins," unless it is taken to mean that baptism is a condi- 
tion of pardon, or that it is necessary for a man to be baptized before 
he can be pardoned. " For " does not always mean "in order to" as 
[ showed, this morning, very plainly, from the usages of our own 
language. I oppose the theory that baptism is a condition of pardon, 
or that a man is not pardoned until he is immersed, simply because 
it makes my salvation depend upon an act which I can not perform 
myself, and which I may not be able to have performed by another. 
Now, baptism is something I can not do for myself. I may be ever 



176 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

so anxious to be saved — to be pardoned — and I may be very near to 
death and eternity, and yet my salvation is dependent upon a thing 
I can not do myself, and which I may not be able to have done by 
some one else. If there should be such a thing as a man's being left 
by himself — the means of baptism not being accessible— although he 
were penitent, and anxiously desired to be saved, there would be no 
hope for him. I object to the theory that baptism is for the remis- 
sion of sins, because it joins together moral exercises and physical 
action ; and, as we cau not always know when the moral exercises 
are such as God requires, we may perform the physical action at the 
wrong time, and fail to secure the desired end. 

I desire to ask my brother some questions again. Will he affirm 
that faith and repentance always precede baptism in the order of time 
as conditions of pardon ? If he answers no, then baptism may some- 
times go before faith and repentance. Such being the case, infant 
baptism is not out of order, for the baptized infant may repent and 
believe when it arrives at the proper age, and realize the forgiveness 
of sins. If he answer in the affirmative, then he assumes just what 
I want him to assume. I will then ask him if every one who comes and 
receives baptism at his hands, or at the hands of any other minister, 
is pardoned when he is baptized? If he says "yes," then I will hold 
him right to the proposition, that any amount of faith and penitence 
will suffice. Is that scriptural? Suppose I have just twice the 
amount of faith, or trust in God, that you have, and have just twice 
the sorrow for my sins that you have, and my faith and penitence 
are just such as Christ requires, and I am pardoned when I receive 
baptism ; will you realize pardon also when baptized, with only half 
the faith and penitence that I have? And another man comes, who 
is as far below you in these moral conditions, as you are below me ; 
is he pardoned also so soon as he is baptized? If you take the posi- 
tion that every one who may be baptized is pardoned in the act, you 
are bound to admit that any amount of faith and repentance is suffi- 
cient. 

This being the case, I ask the brother by what authority he rejects 
any one desiring baptism. And I can prove that men have been re- 
jected in this town, who have sought a place in the Church. But does 
not the Church which my brother represents teach that a man may 
be baptized without his sins being remitted ? I am satisfied it does. 
The man failed to obtain pardon, because his faith and repentance 
were defective. I know Mr. B. will not deny this. I know that his 
self-respect would not allow him to affirm that the man who gets 
drunk and swears, in less than a week after his baptism, was par- 
doned, regenerated, and sanctified. If a man may be baptized and 
not be pardoned on account of the defect of his faith and repent- 
ance; and if faith and repentance must always precede the act of 
baptism, in order to the remission of sins, how is the itnpardoned- 
baptized man, to obtain life and salvation ? If my good brother will 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 177 

not re-immerse him, I see do chance for him. He only had one 
chance offered him, and he took that at the wrong time — before he 
was ready for it, and thereby shut himself out of the kingdom of 
God. Did you ever look at it in that way before? If Mr. B.'s 
theory is correct, then he ought to be exceedingly careful in this 
matter, for he may baptize one before he is ready for it, and instead 
of helping him on in the way of life, he may possibly block up his 
way entirely aud forever. But, unless he is a discerner of spirits, 
how can he tell when a man's moral condition is right for baptism 
and the remission of sins? He may be ready to reply, that the un- 
pardoned-baptized man may, at some subsequent time, repent and 
believe, and having been baptized, as a matter of course, his sins 
wiil then be remitted. That is just what we contend for in the case 
of those who were baptized in infancy. I am thankful for your ex- 
planation, if that is it. 

My friends, I think you all see, by this time, that any system unit- 
ing moral exercises and physical action as conditions of pardon, is 
necessarily defective, unless the administrator of the physical rite 
can discern the Spirit, and know when the man's moral state is 
such as God requires. An apostle might have done this, but we 
can not do it. 

I do not believe that every man who joins the church is a Chris- 
tian. There are some villains in the world, of course, who assume 
the cloak of religion to accomplish their evil purposes. 

If the system advocated by the brother, which unites faith and 
repentance, moral exercises, with baptism a physical rite, which 
can be administered only by another person, is God's system, and if 
faith and repentance always precede baptism in point of time, then 
men ought to be extremely careful when and how they receive the 
rite of baptism. I tell you, that if I believed the doctrine of 
Mr. B., I should perform many heart-searchings before I received 
baptism. I should be very sure that my faith and repentance 
were genuine. How many come into the Church under the in- 
fluence of custom, or by the persuasions of friends, without having 
studied God s word, and having no proper understanding of religion, 
and of the responsibility that rests upon them, and of the vows 
they take in baptism ! They give no evidence of having submitted 
their hearts and consciences to the laws of God's spiritual kingdom; 
and yet my friend applies the physical rite which he believes is 
one of the conditions for obtaining the remission of their sins, while 
the other two conditions are lacking. I hope that my brother will 
cease to propagate a theory which I have shown to be inconsistent 
and contrary to the spirit and genius of Christianity, and destruc- 
tive of the spirituality of the religion which he professes. He 
teaches that water baptism inducts a man into Christ ; the admin- 
istrator of the physical rite is the agent by whom he is inducted 
into Christ; but the man sins, and by his sius, puts himself out of 



178 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Christ, and he is then excluded from the Church. He is excluded 
from the Church because he is already out of Christ. If I was a 
member of the brother's Church, he would find it difficult to expel 
me for certain offenses which he infers are impliedly. prohibited in 
the New Testament, for I have the same right to infer what the 
New Testament allows and prohibits that belongs to him. He con- 
tends that a man sins himself out of Christ, and then he excludes 
him from the Church. If that man truly repents, returns, and is 
again received into the Church, how does he enter the second time 
into Christ, for he will not rebaptize him? If he gets into Christ 
without baptism, in this instance, why not in all instances? But 
the question to be decided is, Does he get into Christ without 
baptism, or does he continue to be out of Christ, and is he saved 
out of Christ, or is he lost? The system advocated by the brother 
is evidentl}'' not adapted to the moral wants, conditions, and cir- 
cumstances of human life. It is applicable to man only once in a 
lifetime, while he may have sins to be pardoned during his whole 
life. But Mr. B. will say, no doubt, that if the man, who has been 
inducted into Christ, sins, he has an advocate with the Father. 
Mark the language of this expression ! It does not say that the 
Christian only has an advocate with the Father. We think that 
the sinner has an advocate with the Father, the same as the bap- 
tized man. Christ came, not to call the righteous, but sinners, to 
repentance ; and as the sinners' advocate, he sits at the right hand 
of God the Father. 

My brother says we have no harmonious, well-adjusted system. 
"We have the grandest and most glorious system in all this world — 
harmonious in all its parts, and based upon the word of God. We 
do not have six or seven ways of obtaining pardon. We do not 
have Abraham pardoned by one system; Enoch, Moses, and the 
thief upon the cross, by another system ; John the Baptist, by 
another system ; and those who believed iu Christ, and were baptized 
uuto him, by another. No, sir; all are pardoned by trust in Jesus 
Christ, from Adam down to the last man that shall stand upon the 
earth at the second coming of Jesus Christ. The theory of faith held 
by my brother's Church is defective. They say that faith is the be- 
lief of testimony, and the act of the creature. I deny that the belief 
of testimony is the act of the creature. I tell you that I have a 
knife in my hand. That is a proposition to be believed, and here is 
the proof of it. I open my hand, hold the knife up to your view, 
exhibit its blades, and show you that it will cut. You have now 
received the testimony of proof. Do you believe the proposition? 
Of course you do. Have you exercised any volition? Have you 
performed any act? No, sir. The simple belief of testimony is 
not an act of the creature, but necessarily results from the contact of 
the mind with the thing believed. It is absolutely necessitated. 
The belief of testimony is not all of faith ; for belief of testimony 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 179 

is a mental conviction "wholly necessitated. Present a man T\ith 
proof sufficient to produce conviction, and his belief is established 
with reference to the fact, and he can not possibly prevent it. But 
then, by the exercise of the power of volition, he can accept or re- 
ject the truth. Paul says, that with the heart, man believes unto 
righteousness. Faith is the act that takes hold of Christ, relies 
upon him, and appropriates the benefits of his atonement to the 
cleansing of the soul; and upon account of this faith, the man is 
justified, or pardoned. According to the theory of my friend, many 
good and pious Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians have 
failed to obtain pardon. I admire his charity, and believe that he 
is a sincere man ; he has not said a word in commendation of me 
that I can not return with all sincerity of heart. But I am not yet 
willing to be immersed by him, or any of his brethren. I must go 
down to death with the ungodly. What is the use of a man's talk- 
ing about charity, when it comes into conflict with God's law? 
We say those who do not conform to the requirements of God, 
who do not comply with the appointed conditions of salvation, are 
doomed to endure the penalty pronounced against the impenitent and 
rebellious. 

But faith in Christ is the appropriating act. That a man may be 
pardoned in the act of immersion, we do not doubt. If he has the 
faith that is required, he may be pardoned in the act of immersion. 
But is the immersion, or the baptism, absolutely indispensable? He 
may be pardoned before the act, or after the act, or in the act. It 
is not the baptism, but the faith, that brings pardon. Repentance 
can not appropriate — baptism can not appropriate. It is the faith 
that goes out and takes hold upon Christ, and appropriates him as 
our Redeemer and our Savior. 

I desire to call your attention to the great Apostle of the Gentiles 
again. We stated, this morning, that Paul wrote nearly one-fourth 
of the New Testament, and that he wrote thirteen epistles to the 
churches — one to the Hebrews, and twelve to the Gentile churches, 
and in all his writings, he never uses the word "baptize" but once, 
and that is in 1 Corinthians i : 17, where he says, " Christ sent me 
not to baptize, but to preach." He uses the term "baptized" nine 
times, and in the following places: "Thanks God he baptized none 
but Crispus and Gaius." — 1 Corinthians i : 14. " Lest any man 
should say he baptized in his own name." — 1 Corinthians i : 15. 
" Baptized the house of Stephanus, and did not know whether he 
baptized any others." — 1 Corinthians i: 16. " Why are they then 
baptized for the dead " ? — 1 Corinthians xv : 29. "And were all 
baptized unto Moses." — 1 Corinthians x: 2. "For by one Spirit 
are we all baptized into one body." — 1 Corinthians xii : 1*3. "Know 
ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
baptized into his death?" — Romans vi : 3. Baptism occurs three 
times. " One baptism." — Ephesians iv : 5. " Buried with him in 



180 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

baptism." — Colossians ii : 12. " We are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death." — Romans vi : 4. 

There is, in connection with this last passage which we have read, 
a death, a burial, a planting, and a crucifixion spoken. of. Accord- 
ing to the laws of interpretation, if he makes the baptism literal, 
the burial must then be literal, the death literal, the planting literal, 
and the crucifixion literal. The whole transaction, then, must be 
literal. It is doubtful whether water baptism is referred to here. 
There is certainly no reference to the mode. But the brother 
imagines he finds a mode here, because Paul declares that we are 
buried by baptism into death. I want him to notice the difference 
between being buried by baptism into death, and being baptized by 
burial unto w T ater. Are not they different propositions? He says 
buried by baptism into death. Wlienever one of my good immer- 
sionist brethren reads that passage, he thinks it means baptized by 
burial into water. They think burial means baptism or immersion, 
and baptism means immersion, and then it would read immersed by 
immersion into death. So they make it mean immersion by im- 
mersion into water. It says nothing at all about water. 

Then Saint Paul having used "baptized" nine times, uses "bap- 
tism" three times. He says we are buried with him by baptism. ' ' There 
is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism." Not one immersion, for 
there are a thousand immersions. Then he uses the term " bap- 
tisms " once, and then baptizo is translated by the term " wash." The 
brother refers to these w T ashings, of which Saint Paul speaks, 
and claims them as arguments in favor of baptism for the remission 
of sins. This is what he accuse*! me of doing, because I opposed the 
idea that baptizo is a univocal word, meaning " dip," and only " dip." 
Whenever he says that the washing of regeneration means baptism, 
he gives up that point. I hope he will do the same thing to-morrow ; 
but he has been in the water so long that he squirms out of a man's 
haud like an eel before he knows what he is about. 

The doctrine that a man is saved by faith, and not by works, is 
emphatically the doctrine of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Saint 
Paul enters into one of the most elaborate and learned arguments 
w 7 e have ever read to prove that man is justified by faith and not by 
w r orks. Faith is not alone, as my brother is anxious for me to say ; 
but faith is the most important act. It has these other things to ac- 
company it, to assist the individual in the exercise of faith, and in 
the appropriation of the merits of Christ, but they are none of them 
the conditions of pardon. 

(Tune Expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 181 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS, ON THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend had evidently got out of material, when he went over 
to the morrow, anticipating our discussion then. I was aware of 
the fact, all the time, that he wanted to lead me from the true issue 
of to-day. He says I am like an eel, he can not hold me. I 
suppose the reason is, that I have been in the water. Well, I will 
say that if he will go into the water once, he will not have so much 
trouble to fill up his time and answer my speeches. It makes a 
great difference when a man has a clear conscience, and has obeyed 
the Lord. I desire to ask him one or two questions. I want to 
ask him if he ever gave the same answer to sinners that Peter, or 
that Ananias did, under similar circumstances? If he never did, 
I wish to ask him another question. Will he ever do it? I am 
certain he never did, and, unless I can succeed in converting him, I 
have no idea he ever will, for a Methodist never gave such answers 
to sinners. 

He would make the same reply to my quotation from Mr. Wesley, 
that I made to his from Mr. Campbell. The gentleman conven- 
iently forgot to impress the thought that his Conference indorsed 
this work of Mr. Wesley's, and sent it out. It is not so much 
what Wesley said, as the indorsement given by his Conference, to 
which I appeal. He should not try to get away from his tracts in 
that manner. He should not try to break the force of these 
quotations by saying Mr. Wesley wrote them. Mr. Fitch does not 
indorse the book, but his General Conference does. We leave him 
and his bishops to settle the difficulty. 

Baptism, he says, is a work, and, of course, is included in the 
Works by which Paul says we are not justified. I want to read 
him a passage upon this subject : 

"Then they said unto him, What shall we do, that w r e might 
work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, 
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath 
sent."— John vi : 28. 

Now, by the same, logic that he would reject baptism, he would 
reject faith, for this, also, is a work to be done. But I can only 
allude to these things in their order. As I showed you this morn- 
ing, the Apostle simply means to teach that no man can justify him- 
self by deed^ of the law ; and that his righteousness, if he attain any, 
must be through obedient faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 



182 



BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



Again : it is a great matter with my friend, that baptism de- 
pends upon the act of somebody else, and his feelings get terribly 
excited, for fear some man, who has lost his way in a sandy desert, 
should first believe, and then die before he could get to. water. Yes, 
he is horrified that man's salvation should be made to depend on the 
act of any other man. Let us see how it is with faith. 

' ' How then shall they call on him in whom they have not be- 
lieved? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not 
heard ? and how shall they hear without a preacher ? and how shall 
they preach except they be sent?" — Romans x: 14. 

Now, the gentleman says salvation depends upon our faith, but 
the Apostle says we can not have faith without a preacher, so that 
our salvation depends upon another's act, if it rests upon faith. 
My friend is mo.st unfortunate. His knife cuts always toward him- 
self. His sword leaps out, but comes back with the point toward 
his own heart. 

"Paul quit baptizing!" Well, that was something new. You 
may wonder where my friend learned that. That is a piece of 
history I had not learned until to-day. Now I want just one more 
thing learned. Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth. There were 
divisions in the Church of God, and parties were calling themselves 
after men — individual men. Paul understood these very things, 
and he simply thanks God that he had baptized no others in that 
city, lest they might say he baptized them in his own name, and call 
themselves after him. Well, now, the gentleman infers from this 
that Paul quit baptizing, and that he had no commission to baptize. 
I wonder what commission Paul had, or my friend, or any body 
else has to baptize, if it is not that great commission which Christ 
gave: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every 
creature ; and he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and 
he that believeth not, shall be damned!" 

Paul acted under that commission, just as my friend, and every- 
body else that has lived from that day to this ; and God has ever saved 
men, throughout all subsequent time, under that same commission. 

Now, my friends, there are some things not worthy of notice. The 
expression "quibbling" is a little unparliamentary, and I shall not 
use the term. But, really, he sometimes condescends to arguments 
that do not deserve attention. There are just three conditions of 
pardon, as we have seen to-day. The sinner is not pardoned until 
he has complied with the third condition. The gentleman himself 
has said that "pardon is an act in the mind of God." Shall I say 
how silly, or what folly it is for a man to confess in one breath that 
pardon is an act of God, and then ask if it is done by degrees — in 
three steps or divisions — to tally with faith, repentance, and baptism? 
I have no more to say upon logic such as that ; I will leave it to the 
school-boys and school-girls of Winchester. 

The gentleman has said a great deal about moral influences and 



mr. brooks's fourth address. 183 

physical exercises. A remark, in regard to this matter, will suffice ; 
I will not stop to notice it further: God never did, since the world 
began, ordain a physical act to be performed by man without con- 
necting it with moral influences. They are inseparable. 

He says, if he were in our Church, it would be very hard to get 
him out. As I said, if he had been baptized in water, for the remis- 
sion of his sins, honestly, sincerely, and truthfully, it would be hard 
to get him out. He would be so well pleased that he would abide 
there until death. 

To the Christian who sins, the Lord has promised that, if he will 
confess his sins, and repent, he will be forgiven. The gentleman 
quoted 1 John ii: 1, to prove that Christ was the advocate with the 
Father in behalf of unconverted men. Does my friend know that 
this epistle was written to Christians? When the Apostle says " we' 
have an advocate with the Father," he means that we Christians, and 
not sinners, have an advocate. If the sinner already has such an 
advocate, what is the use of bringing him into the Church ? It is to 
bring the sinner where he can ask the Father to forgive him that we 
try to convert him. As long as he stands off, and says, "Lord, you 
have commanded me to be baptized, and I will. not," the Lord is not 
going to receive him ; the Savior is not going to ask God to forgive 
him, for he is trampling on the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
He says that faith upon testimony is not an act of the mind, but a 
necessity of our nature, and, in proof of this, held up his knife, and 
asked if we could have faith to believe that he held it in his hand. 
It is a matter of knowledge that he holds the knife in his hand; but 
that the Lord Jesus Christ died for many, we did not see, and can 
only believe on the authority of those who did see it; and if my friend 
expects to get into heaven any other way, he is mistaken. "These 
things are written, that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God." John says these things are written that you might have 
faith ; and yet faith does not come through testimony ! Besides, if 
this be so, when Paul commanded the Philippian jailer to believe, he 
commanded a thing he had no power to do. My friend has placed 
the living God in this attitude. Men can believe ; else God has com- 
manded them to do that which they can not do, and the gentleman 
will not pretend to maintain this for a moment. 

My friend appeals to your charities. The horrific argument, as 
brother Sweeney calls it, is upon us again. I have only to say, he 
may talk of charity as much as he pleases. I do not believe that 
he, or any body else, has a broader, deeper charity than myself. I 
commenced, when quite a youth, to preach the Gospel, and I 
have labored faithfully from that moment to this. I have a 
heart just big enough to wish Mr. Fitch, and all his brethren 
before me, in the kingdom of Christ ; but I dare not hold back the 
counsel of God on these questions. If I fail to tell men that they 
must be baptized; if I fail to tell them the whole truth, God will 



184 EROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

damn me in eternity for not doing my duty. Much as I love my 
fellow-men, for my good, and for my eternal interest, as well as 
theirs, I must tell them they will be damned, if disobedient to God. 
Jesus Christ himself has denounced punishment on the disobedient. 

My friend confessed, in the last part of his speech, that " men 
might be pardoned in the waters of baptism." So much, so good. 
I was a little amused at this, because my friend has said so much, 
and has so constantly ridiculed the idea of men being pardoned in 
the water. I solemnly believe that, if brother Fitch is sincere, 
and continues to yield to the truth, he will obey the Gospel — else I 
never saw a man so thoroughly confused as he is. He says we will 
not all be damned, even though we reject baptism ; and, again, that 
we will all be damned, if we hear and believe the Go.-pel, and re- 
fuse to be baptized. Can a man be saved, who refuses to fully 
comply with one of the conditions of salvation ? I say, no. Will 
my friend say no? If a believer is unbaptized, from willful neglect, 
he will be lost. 

I have presented you, to-day, my friends, the argument briefly 
upon this question. I have shown you that in the very commis- 
sion Christ gave his apostles to preach the Gospel, he made faith, 
repentance, and baptism conditions of pardon. I have shown you 
that this organic law of the kingdom of Jesus Christ contains these 
conditions of pardon. I have proven to you that the apostles, 
when first they set up the kingdom, on Pentecost, inspired by the 
Spirit of the living God, called upon men to repent, and be bap- 
tized for the remission of sins. I have shown you again, that, in the 
case of Saul of Tarsus, the inspired preacher called upon him to 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling upon the 
name of the Lord." I have demonstrated the perfect harmony of 
the words of that commission with what the Pentecostians did, and 
with what Saul of Tarsus did. Then, again, that as many as are 
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ ; that we have put on his 
righteousness in baptism, and hence are justified and pardoned; then 
that we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, and thus come into relation with Christ ; that he forgives us 
our sins, and cleanses us from all iniquity by the washing of water; 
that we have been baptized into his death ; and then, in his blood, 
he has cleansed the guilty soul from all its stains and iniquities. I 
have shown that the gnat Apostle of the Gentiles, of whom my 
friend speaks so much, declared that we were saved by the washing 
of water. Mr. Wesley himself says the washing of water is bap- 
tism. Then, if this be true, the Apostle simply declares that we are 
saved by the washing of the water of baptism. More than that, 
Christ has, the same Apostle tells us, cleansed his Church by the 
washing of water. I have shown you how the gentleman's own 
creed taught baptism for remission of sins, and he has not denied 
the fact ; yet he will not defend that creed. Besides, all the creeds 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 185 

and commentators, of any distinction, have affirmed this to be the 
doctrine of the Scriptures ; indeed, all who have written on this 
subject, except a few men of modern times, who have no distinction 
as men of letters, have so affirmed. 

And thus, when I have proven my proposition over and over 
again ; when I have demonstrated from his own creed, and from all 
the creeds of earth, that this is the doctrine taught in the Bible, 
and that baptism is for the remission of sins, what more can we do? 
My friend, on the other hand, has done all he could do to show that 
men are justified by faith. I believe that as firmly as he does ; but 
I believe they are justified by baptism too. Has he shown you 
once where men have been justified by faith only? Have we not 
quoted the passage from the Bible which says: "A man justified by 
works, and not by faith alone?" I am perfectly willing, then, to 
leave this question with an intelligent community, as one who labors 
in the interest of their eternal peace and eternal happiness. We 
simply plead for truth, and ask you to accept it. 

16 



186 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY, TO THE THIRD 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentleman Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I heartily agree with my brother in one thing, that is, I have 
no interest to serve but that of the truth. God is my witness that 
I desire the truth, and nothing but the truth. I have declared noth- 
ing from this desk during the three days in which this discussion has 
been progressing, but what I believed to be taught in God's word. 

The brother asked me if I had ever given the answer to an in- 
quirer after salvation which Peter gave to the persons whom he ad- 
dressed on the day of Pentecost, or whether I ever would give such 
an answer. I reply that, whenever I find men in just such a con- 
dition, and under the same circumstances, with the same wrongs 
having been committed by them, I will give substantially the tfiiine 
reply which he gave. I want to know if, when a poor sinner comes 
to him trembling because of the terrible consequences of sin, and 
under apprehensions of the impending ruin that hangs over him, 
and inquires what he must do to be saved, he will give the answer 
Paul gave to the Philippian jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and thou shalt be saved?" 

Mr. Brooks — Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fitch — We are getting very near together, then ; but I 
don't know whether you are becoming a convert, or I. 

I have no doubt that this audience feel under very great obliga- 
tions to my good brother for telling them so frequently that I am 
being converted, and that I am giving up the question. I am satis- 
fied by their looks, and from all the indications that I am able to see, 
that they are not discovering these facts until he makes them known. 

I can now understand how it is that the gentleman knows when to 
apply the physical action of baptism, because, if he can discern my 
heart so as to know that I am becoming converted, he certainly knows 
when a man's faith and repentance are in such a condition that he 
can apply the act of baptism so as to secure the remission of his sins. 

I feel that I have not much to do, and I will therefore proceed 
leisurely. He quoted a passage in which faith is said to be the work 
of God. He knows, just as well as I do, that faith is not the work of 
God in the sense in which baptism is a work. He knows that the 
Apostle did not mean to teach any such idea. He knows that the 
Apostle separated and distinguished faith from works proper, when 
he says that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law, 
and that he is saved by faith and not by works. Then the brother 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 187 

told you that I had represented a man as being out in a desolate 
place without any of the instrumentalities and means of salvation 
and grace, and that I was very solicitous for him. He would like to 
make the impression upon your minds that this is a very trivial cir- 
cumstance, an unusual case, that happens probably once in a century. 
But, I would ask you, how frequently such cases occur? 

As I remarked in my last speech, how many of our noble brothers 
and sons were in just such circumstances, as I supposed, during the 
war through which we have lately passed. Just such cases as this 
are occurring every day ; and if the salvation of these men, or of 
any man, depends upon the performance of an act which he can not 
perform himself, and which can not be performed by another, then 
the promise fails, and salvation is not made sure to such an one, and 
the gates of hell prevail against him under these circumstances. 

The brother wanted to know how these very men, under these cir- 
cumstances, could be saved without the instrumentality of another 
man; for he says: "How shall a man believe on him of whom he 
has not heard? and how shall he hear without a preacher?" Sure 
enough ! Does he think that these supposed cases of mine were men 
who had never seen the Bible, or read it, or heard a preacher ? Does 
he suppose they were entirely ignorant of God's revealed word, and 
of the plan of salvation ? I made no allusion to men of that char- 
acter at all. He tells you that I am the most unfortunate man he 
has met with for some time. I think he meant to say, his meeting 
with me was the most unfortunate affair for him, that has occurred 
for some time. It will prove a most disastrous affair for him, if I 
am not very much mistaken. At least, he is impressed with the idea 
that there is misfortune connected with it in some way. I do not 
feel any sense of misfortune myself. 

But I am not disposed to lose sight of the point, which I have 
kept steadily in view. My opponent says, that I stated that Paul 
quit baptizing. Did I make any such statement? I said that Paul 
stated that Christ sent him not to baptize. But he affirmed that 
Paul discontinued baptizing in that city, and there was a disturbance 
among the people, and a division, such as we have in our churches, 
one getting up and saying: " I am for Paul ;" and another, "I for 
Apollos," and so on. It may be in his new translation, but in 
King James's old Bible, I find nothing said about Paul's ceasing to 
baptize in that city. Paul said: "Christ sent me not to baptize, 
but to preach the Gospel." I am very glad that the brother is get- 
ting liberal after all his talk about us poor Methodists, and about our 
squealing, squeaking babies. I assure him that I will be just as 
liberal and just as courteous as he possibly can be. The reason 
why I have made some of the remarks which I have, is because of 
his ad captandum speeches. I am obliged to meet him with his own 
weapons; and when he indulges in such speeches, I must meet him 
on that ground, or th^re is nothing to answer. 



388 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

He wants to know if I am not aware that these epistles, to which 
I have alluded, were written to Christians. I think that I under- 
stand them, as I have studied them well. I think I am more or less 
familiar with all the facts and truths which they contain. 

I know I have been regarded by the brother, and some of his 
friends, as unlearned and incompetent, but nevertheless I profess to 
know and understand some things. You take a passage; it makes 
no difference to who#a it was addressed ; you apply it to a sinner, and 
he responds, " Why, that was written to a saint, a believer, a child 
of God." Then, on the other hand, you take the same passage, and 
apply it to a saint, and the response is, " Why, that was written to a 
sinner." If nothing else will do, then he will say, as one of his breth- 
ren has done with reference to a certain passage, "Why, that was 
addressed to Nicodemus, and has nothing upon earth to do with 
us." 

The brother has represented me as talking about two laws of par- 
don. If I am not mistaken, I said nothing about two laws of pardon. 
I did undertake to show r , that Peter said that God put no difference 
between the company assembled at the house of Cornelius, and the 
Jews, upon the day of Pentecost, but that their hearts were purified 
by faith; and I proved, from the word of God, one of his own breth- 
ren being judge, that the company, at the house of Cornelius, were 
converted and pardoned before baptism ; and I proved that the con- 
verted man's sins are blotted out, and of course, remitted. If there 
was no difference between them and the Jew T s at Pentecost, by what 
authority does Mr. B. put baptism between the faith of the JPentecos- 
tians and the remission of their sins, requiring them to pass through 
the yielding wave and the liquid grave, before they could stand 
upon the shore of pardon ? No, sir ; I have not had the idea of two 
laws of pardon. I said, in my last speech, that I advocated a sys- 
tem that extended from the fall of man through all the succeeding 
ages, and that would continue until the trump should sound to 
awaken the dead. 

But my opponent advocates two systems. He is bound to have 
two systems, even under the present dispensation, one for the unbap- 
tized, and one for the man who has been baptized, and who back- 
slides and sins again. 

Then he again misunderstood me in reference to faith. I do not 
remember the exact language which he used in respect to it, but I 
always remember what I say myself. I say that the belief of testi- 
mony is not the act of the creature. That is what I say, and any 
one who understands the mental constitution of man, who has ex- 
amined the psychological phenomena of man, knows the intellections 
and the states of the sensibilities are all necessitated, and that liberty 
pertains only to the power or faculty of volition. You can not help 
seeing without you close your eyes, and when the testimony presented 
is of sufficient power to convict you, you will be convicted without 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 189 

an act or volition — you believe, and you believe of necessity. You 
believe because you are so constituted, and not by an act of will on 
your part. If I tell you that your father is dead, and bring his 
corpse to you as evidence of that fact, you believe it, although the 
fact is disagreeable to you. So the word of God conies to man so 
attested, that, when his mind is divested of all prejudice, it is just as 
certain to convict him of -sin, just as certain to satisfy him of the 
existence of God, and to satisfy him of the claims and divinity of 
Jesus Christ, as that it is the word of God. But the belief of testi- 
mony is not the act of the creature, nor the faith that saves; but 
saving faith is the act of trusting in Christ, of putting forth the 
moral affections. The fixing of them upon Jesus Christ is the act 
by which the benefits of the atonement are realized. 

The brother was glad that I did allow that a man could be par- 
doned in the act of baptism, in the water. I did not exactly get 
him into the water, because I always like to get the water on to 
the man. I think that is God's way of baptizing ; at least that is the 
way he baptized men with the Spirit. He says that question is dis- 
posed of. Is that admitting the proposition? Is that giving up 
what I have advocated to-day? Is that admitting that baptism is 
a condition of pardon ? I say that a man may be pardoned before 
baptism, if he believes with his heart uuto righteousness. That is 
my doctrine. That is the doctrine of Methodists. We believe 
that a man may be pardoned in this way, even without the act of 
baptism; and we believe this to be the doctrine Of the Bible, both 
of the Old and the New Testament. 

My opponent states that by water baptism a man may be in- 
ducted into Christ, and in the act of baptism he comes into contact 
with the blood of Christ, and then is pardoned. Just see what a 
difficulty he gets himself into. The man who is baptized into 
Christ, must be baptized into Christ before he is pardoned, because 
the act of baptism puts him into Christ, and brings him into contact 
with the blood of Christ; and the act of baptism must precede the 
remission of sins, and he is into Christ before his sins are remitted. 
How do you like that? If you like it, I do not. I want the man 
pardoned before he is a member of Christ. 

And again-: Speaking about that charity that beareth all things 
and hopeth all things, I would say that it has to hope a great deal 
for us poor, deluded Pedobaptists. The brother "wants to know if a 
man can be saved who refuses to be baptized ; and he expresses great 
fear in consequence of our not being baptized; and all this time he 
is assuming what he ought to be proving, and what he can not 
prove, that immersion, and immersion only, is baptism. His fears 
are as groundless as the baseless fabric of a vision. My good 
brother, if you never have any thing more to disturb your peace, 
and oppress your mind, you will grow fat, rejoice, and be glad all 
the days of your life. Don't give yourself any uneasiness concern- 



190 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

ing us; we are on the way to Zion, and we have the witness that 
we are the children of God. He that believeth in the Son, hath 
the witness within himself that he is the child of God; and if we 
are the children of God, and if God's Spirit hears witness with our 
spirits, because we believe on the Son, we do not care a fig for 
your baptizo, and your dip, and your immerse. 

He says that Paul teaches that baptism is a condition of pardon. 
We told you that this theory is based upon one little Greek particle, 
<l eis," translated probably by a score of terms. I will admit, if 
necessary, that it ought to be translated "for," and nothing else, 
and yet he can not prove it is a condition of pardon. If he takes 
the position that the English word "for," the translation of "m," 
means only " in order to," then he is bound to take the position 
that when a man is hung for murder, he is hung in order to com- 
mit murder. The etymological and logical laws that govern these 
things will compel him to such a conclusion. 

Nowhere in the New Testament are faith, repentance, and bap- 
tism joined together as conditions of pardon. It is strange to me 
that a reformation inaugurated upon the basis of a " Thus saith 
the Lord " for every thing, repudiating creeds, and confessions of 
faith, and acting upon the principle of the Mohammedan when he 
decided, in regard to the destruction of the Alexandrian library, that 
all things that did not agree with the Koran were useless, and ought 
to be destroyed — presents a system of pardon, and there is not a 
"Thus saith the Lord" to support it. If the brother will find a 
passage which says that faith, repentance and baptism, these three, 
no more, and no less, are the conditions of pardon, I will join his 
Church. If he will prove that sins are literally washed away in 
the act of baptism, and not emblematically, as Alexander Camp- 
bell says, I will yield the question. I will say nothing more about 
Mr. Campbell's canon, " wash away thy sins, calling upon the name 
of the Lord." I have no duubt that the brother is sorry that 
Campbell ever uttered such a thing. 

Just here I would like to remind him that his brethren sometimes 
become indignant when we call them Campbellites. I think Alex- 
ander Campbell is an honor to that denomination, and they ought 
not to be ashamed to be called his disciples. It does not make them 
any the less Christians. If a man is less a Christian because he calls 
himself a Campbellite, he is less a Christian because he calls himself 
John. The principle is the same. 

The gentleman calls your attention to the passage which says the 
Church is saved by water, or by the washing of water. How is it 
saved ? I am willing to admit that it is saved by water, just as Noah 
was saved by water. Who constitute this Church? Every man 
whose name is upon the Church book, or record, forms a part of the 
visible Church. Is all this mass of men, whether pardoned or not, to be 
saved by water ? Saint Paul had no such thought as that. By bap- 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 101 

tism we are simply separated from the world, and brought into covenant 
relationship with God ; we are God's acknowledged people if we wor- 
ship him in spirit and in truth. Just as water saved Noah, because 
he was in the ark of God, separating him from the impenitent and 
ungodly world, water saves us from the world, simply by putting us 
into the visible Church. But it does not save us from our sins, our 
guilt, and our moral depravity — from the consequences of our per- 
sonal transgressions. *Paul had no such idea in his mind when he 
said, We are saved by the washing of water. He said, We are 
justified by faith ; but does he say, We are justified also by baptism ? 
Show me the text, if you can, where it is said w T e are justified by 
baptism, or by water, or by immersion, or by sprinkling, or pour- 
ing, or that these are imputed to us for righteousness, and I w T ill 
yield the question. 

My dear friends, my opponent came here to prove that baptism 
is a condition of pardon — that you can not be pardoned, no matter 
how profound your repentance, and how strong your faith — until 
you allow him, or some one else, to put you through the waters of 
baptism. I appeal to you to know whether he has done it. I ask 
you whether I have not taken up his quotations from the Scriptures — 
and nothing but Scripture can prove these questions — and analyzed 
them, and shown that he has put a wrong construction upon them ? 
Have I not shown that they are susceptible of another exegesis than 
that which he has given them, even that passage which he quoted 
in regard to the renewing of the Holy Ghost? By his reference to 
this passage, he gives up his univocal idea of " dip," and he is cer- 
tainly hard pressed, or he would not do that. The term used here 
is not baptizo, but leutron, a generic term, expressing an act that 
may be done by pouring, sprinkling, or dipping, or by applying 
water in any way. I am glad I have succeeded in converting the 
brother, so far as that, to pouring and sprinkling, as modes of bap- 
tism. 

Has he proved his proposition? Feeling confident that he has 
not, and that we have refuted all his arguments, and corrected the 
misconstructions which he has placed upon the passages which he 
has adduced to prove his proposition, we are willing now to submit 
the question to you, being confident that this intelligent audience 
will decide fairly upon the respective merits of what has been said 
by both myself and my opponent. 

(Time expired.) 



FOURTH PROPOSITION. 



THE SPRINKLING OR POURING OF WATER UPON A PROPER SUB- 
JECT, BY A PROPER PERSON, IN THE NAME OF FATHER, 
SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT, IS SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM 



Thursday, September 16, 1869. 

17 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Thursday, September l§ih. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Few questions pertaining to Christianity have been more prolific 
of discussion than the question of baptism, its nature, design, 
and mode. The question for discussion to-day is as follows: "The 
pouring or sprinkling of water upon a proper subject, by a proper 
person, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is 
Scriptural baptism." 

Baptism is a Christian rite or sacrament by which persons are 
consecrated to the service of God, and initiated into the Christian 
Church, or the society of believers, and in the administration of this 
rite water is used as a purifying symbol. We do not believe that 
when Christ commissioned his apostles to disciple the nations, and 
baptize them, that he ordained a specific mode of applying the 
water, to the exclusion of other modes ; the analogies of religion all 
stand opposed to such a theory. God appoints things, not modes. 
There is in the New Testament Scriptures no prescribed mode 
for the performance of any duty enjoined by them. We are com- 
manded to pray, but the manner in which we shall pray, and the 
posture which we shall assume in prayer, are not designated. We 
are required to partake of the Lord's Supper, but the time, place, 
and mode of doing this, are not specified. 

And so God has not ordained a specific mode, according to our 
belief, for the performance of any of the religious duties that are 
enjoined upon us by the Holy Scriptures. We do not, therefore, 
contend that Christ ordained affusion as a mode of baptism in an 
exclusive sense, or that a man is more acceptable to God, or that 
God regards him with more favor, because he has been baptized in 
this particular way, rather than in some other way. We have no 
such modal idea of baptism. The man who contends for a divinely 
appointed and exclusive mode of baptism, be it pouring, sprinkling, 
or immersion, is almost certain to unduly magnify its importance, 
and to make its efficacy depend entirely upon modality. As a mat- 
ter of course, he arrives at the conclusion that God is better pleased 
with him than with those who have not conformed to his specific 
action in this matter. 

(195) 



196 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

That which we believe, and for which we contend, as a people, as 
a Church, upon this subject, is that pouring, or sprinkling, is author- 
ized and sanctioned by the Scriptures of divine truth as a valid 
mode of applying the element, water, in the administration of the 
rite of Christian baptism. I am not, therefore, here, to-day, the ad- 
vocate, of an exclusive system, or of an exclusive mode. My op- 
ponent contends that, without an entire submersion of the whole 
body in the water, there is no baptism. He thereby unbaptizes, 
and unchurches me, together with millions who love the Lord Jesus 
Christ. 

As I stated in one of my former speeches, his exclusive theory 
unchurches and unbaptizes seventy-eight millions of the eighty 
millions of professed Christians in the world, and nearly eighteen 
millions of the twenty millions of Protestants in the world. You 
will perceive, at once, that this is to me, and to many more, a sub- 
ject of the most vital importance. It resolves itself into this ques- 
tion, so far as myself and others who share my belief are concerned, 
Have we been baptized? It ought to appear, therefore, to every 
one present, that I come to the discussion of this question with all 
honesty and candor ; and that I desire only to elicit the truth, be- 
cause, if I am in error, in that fatal error in which my brother con- 
tends that I am, I ought really to be more concerned than he is. 

We are told that the Bible is a plain, intelligible book, and that, 
when it enjoins baptism, it enjoins a well-defined, specific action 
which no one, however illiterate and undisciplined in mind, need 
misunderstand. If this be true, is it not unaccountably strange that 
millions of the best and wisest of earth have, through succeeding 
centuries, failed to learn that submersion of the entire body in 
water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
only is baptism ? 

And it is asserted that we have no proof that pouring or sprink- 
ling water upon a proper subject, in the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, is baptism. Has it never occurred to my 
friend, in reading the New Testament, that it was somewhat remark- 
able that John and the apostles always found water suitable for bap- 
tism just where they preached, whether at Jordan, or beyond Jordan, 
or at Enon, or in Jerusalem, or in the jail at Philippi, or in the 
desert, or at the prayer-meeting, or in the house of Cornelius, or in 
the house of Judas, wherever they happened to be? We have not 
a single instance of their going to search for water, as our immer- 
sionists have frequently to do. This of itself is a stroug proba- 
bility against immersion, and in favor of affusion. 

I am glad to say that I have given the subject a pretty thorough 
examination, both in the light of the classics and of the Holy Scrip- 
tures, and I am perfectly satisfied with our faith and practice. I 
make this declaration with all candor and honesty. As baptism is 
a Christian institution, we can understand it only by an investiga- 



MR. PITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 197 

tion of the Holy Scriptures. Neither the Greek classics nor lexi- 
cons can instruct us to any considerable degree as to the nature and 
mode of baptism. I propose to confine my investigations to the 
Scriptures. I am willing to risk the cause which I advocate with 
them. If my arguments are not sustained by the law and testi- 
mony of the word of God, I am willing that they should fall, for 
that is the only tribunal that can decide this question in a satis- 
factory manner. "To the law and the testimony/' then, is my motto. 

The difference between me ana the brother, and his church and my 
church, is this: they contend that the word designating this rite is 
specific ; we, that it is generic. I desire to define my position ex- 
actly. I do not wish to be misrepresented. He contends that the 
word used in the New Testament to designate this rite, is a specific 
word, having only one meaning, and that meaning is dip always 
and every-where. The position w r hich I take is that the word is a gen- 
eric term, that in its religious or ecclesiastical sense it means a symboli- 
cal washing or purification, and not a literal washing or purification 
from sins. It is a washing that may be performed either by im- 
mersing the person in the element, or applying the element to the 
subject, pouring or sprinkling it upon him. It implies bringing 
into contact the subject and the element, water, while the formula 
prescribed in the New Testament, "In the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost" is repeated. 

The first passage in which these words occurs, and to which I 
will call your attention, is Mark vii : 4. I will read the whole 
context: "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with 
defiled, that is to say with unwashed hands, they found fault. For 
the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, 
eat not, holding the traditions of the elders. And when they come 
from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many 
other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the 
washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." 

In Luke xi : 38, we read the following language, and here also I will 
read the context: "And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought 
him to dine with him ; and he went in and sat down to meat. And 
when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed 
before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees 
make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your 
inward part is full of ravening and wickedness." 

You, who are not familiar with this question, may be ready to 
inquire why I have read these passages. I have read them for the 
purpose of showing that the term used to designate the Christian 
rite is generic. The Pharisees found fault in Jesus Christ, because 
he did not wash before he sat down to meat. The word rendered 
"wash," is the very same word which is employed to designate the 
Christian rite called baptism. It is the word baptizo. Is it here 
rendered " dip " / It can not be rendered " dip" and preserve the 



198 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

true and proper meaning. I wish I had the new translation, that 
I might see whether it is rendered "dip" in this place. I hope 
the brother will enlighten us upon this point. We find here a 
specific case of washing the hands. It is stated that except they 
wash their hands, they eat not. 

From this specific case of washing the hands we proceed to a gen- 
eric case of washing which establishes the generic use of the term bap- 
tizo. It is evident, from the whole connection, that the meaning of 
the term here is purify ; for does not the Savior tell them that they 
were particular to cleanse the outside of the cup and platter, so that 
it would present a neat and clean appearance, while within they were 
full of ravening and wickedness ; and that, while they gave their at- 
tention to the little, and comparatively insignificant, things of the 
law, giving tithes of mint, anise, and cummin, they neglected the 
weightier matters of the law ; and that if they would only give alms, 
and preserve a pure heart and conscience, then all things would be 
pure to them. This tradition of the elders, that they must purify — 
that is, baptize, for that is the term employed — when they came from 
the market, and before they sat down to their meals, was altogether 
unnecessary ; their hearts and consciences were not to be reached, and 
cleansed, and purified in this way. I affirm that, in this place, the 
w r ord does not mean dip; I aver also that all the probabilities in the 
case favor the idea that these "baptisms" which are called "wash- 
ings" in this place, were performed by affusion, and not by dipping. 
Mark my language: I do not say they were actually performed in 
this way, but all the probabilities favor the idea that these ceremonial 
washings, or baptisms, were performed by affusion, and not by im- 
mersion or dipping. 

The first argument upon which I base this assertion is the fact that 
the frequency of these baptisms renders immersion quite improba- 
ble. They were performed before eating, and after returning from 
the market. Let us make some inquiry with reference to the char- 
acter of the market-place, and the frequency of their visits to this 
place. I will read from Acts xvi: 19, and xvii: 17: 

"And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, 
they caught Paul and Silas, and drew them into the market-place, 
unto the rulers, and brought them to the magistrates. 

"Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with 
the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with 
him. Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics 
encountered him." 

Here poets entertained the people with their recitations, and dram- 
atists with the performance of their plays ; magistrates administered 
justice in this place; and here also philosophers taught. It was a 
place of general public resort, not only at Athens and Rome, but 
also at Jerusalem, which was, at that time, fast copying the usages 
of foreign cities. It is, then, exceedingly improbable that, on re- 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 199 

turning from the market, to which every one, and especially the Phar- 
isees, resorted, almost every day, and before eating, they immersed 
themselves, or that what are here called washings or baptisms were 
performed by immersion. The probability is that affusion was the 
mode of performing them. 

Again : Their character being religious or ceremonial, and sprink- 
ling being particularly efficacious for the purification of unclean per- 
sons, it is probable that sprinkling was employed. All the purifica- 
tions enjoined upon the Jewish people were performed by sprinkling. 
At least, sprinkling, or pouring, alone Avas enjoined. Immersion w T as 
never enjoined upon them by divine authority, nor by the religious 
traditions of the elders, which they considered equal in authority 
•with those things which God himself had enjoined. As sprinkling 
and pouring were regarded as efficacious, we argue that the baptisms 
alluded to were doubtless performed by affusion. 

In the next place, the objects baptized or washed render affusion 
probable. What were those objects? Cups, pots, brazen vessels, 
and couches — for the word here rendered table means bed, or couch ; 
and Bagster, in his "Lexicon of the New Testament," gives it that 
meaning, and no other. Whenever any of these objects came in con- 
tact with a man who had been to the market, they contracted impurity 
and defilement, and it was necessary, according to the idea of these 
Pharisees, and these men who received the traditions of the elders, 
to baptize them, in order to purify them before they were used again. 
If you will refer to John ii: 6, you will be enabled to understand 
something more with reference to these ceremonial and religious 
rites: "And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the 
manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins 
apiece." 

Now, we understand that those vessels, in the house where our 
Savior attended that wedding, in Cana, of Galilee, were vessels for 
holding the waters of purification, or baptism. The largest estimated 
amount contained in any one of those vessels, we have been able to 
find, in all our investigations, was twenty-two and a half gallons. 
Was it possible for these men to wash their tables, couches, chairs, and 
stools in these vessels of water, if it w T as to be done by immersing 
them ? If the thing defiled was put into one of these vessels, it defiled 
all the water contained in the vessel, and it could be used no further. 
We learn, from Jewish writers, that the way in which these purifica- 
tions, or baptisms, were administered, w r as by taking a bunch of 
hyssop, and dipping it into clean water, and then, with the bunch 
of hyssop, sprinkle the water of purification upon the man who had 
contracted defilement; or the couch, or vessel, which was con- 
sidered unclean. The water was merely sprinkled upon them, and 
they were considered purified. To this day, the washing of the 
hands is not performed, among Oriental nations, by dipping in the 
hands, as with us, but by pouring the water upon them. That this 



200 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

was the ancient custom, may be seen by reference to 2 Kings iii : 
11 : ' Here is Elisha Ben Shaphat, who poured water on the hands 
of Elijah." According to the accounts of travelers who have re- 
cently been in the East, this is still the custom. 

I have now shown, I tliink, that the probabilities, in this case, 
clearly warrant the conclusion that these baptisms, which are called 
washings, were performed by affusion. If the brother affirms that 
these baptisms were by immersion, I want him to prove it. He 
will affirm it, for he teaches that baptizo is specific, and never means 
any thing but dip or immerse. The same term is used here, and 
it will not do for him to say that these passages have nothing to 
do with the question. He must show that it means dip here, and 
nothing but dip. He must show that it here retains its specific idea. 
I am contending for its generic sense, and I have nothing more to 
offer upon this point now. 

I will proceed next to call your attention to a case of actual bap- 
tism, where a person was actually baptized, by a man appointed for 
that purpose, and one that the brother will recognize as a baptism. 
It is mentioned in Matthew iii: 6: "Then went out to him Jeru- 
salem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." 

I wish here to make a statement. Men talk about immersion as 
though it were as plainly taught in, and written upon the face of, 
the New Testament Scriptures, as it is possible to be, and they often 
seem astonished that any man has the audacity to advocate any 
thing else. I tell you, my friends, it is not there, and you can not 
get it there, without a process of deduction, to save your life. No 
man has ever attempted to prove immersion without leaving the 
New Testament and going to the Greek lexicons and classics. 
When Mr. Brooks forsakes the New Testament, and goes to the 
classics and lexicons, he gives up the position that the Bible plainly 
teaches immersion. If the brother is willing to affirm to-day that 
the New Testament teaches immersion, I want him to prove it 
from the New Testament alone, and let the lexicons and the classics 
go. I contend that the New Testament Scriptures fix unmistakably 
the meaning of this term, as it is used with reference to the Christian 
rite. I am willing to stand by them, and to abide by their decision. 
There is no passage in the New Testament that can be regarded as 
affording more evidence of immersion than that which we have read : 
"Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the re- 
gion round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, 
confessing their sins." The whole theory of my brother is to be 
wrought out of the little preposition " en " — in Jordan. There is an- 
other passage which reads very much like this: "John did baptize 
in the wilderness. And there went out unto him all the land of 
Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the 
river Jordan, confessing their sins." 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 201 

Again : In John x: 40, we read: "And went away again beyond 
Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized; and there he 
abode." 

Once more we read the following language, used in John 1: 28: 
" These things Avere done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where 
John was baptizing." 

Is there any thing in these passages to denote the mode? Is it 
declared how he baptized? It tells where he baptized, that he 
baptized in Jordan, but, according to the rendering here, there is 
nothing that describes the mode. He also baptized in the wilder- 
ness and beyond Jordan, but is there one word about the manner 
in which the rite was administered? Does it tell whether he im- 
mersed them in the river Jordan, or poured water upon them, or 
sprinkled it upon them? 

The Greek word here translated, "in," is en, and Schleusner, in 
his celebrated lexicon of the Greek New Testament, has given it 
thirty-six distinct senses. It is translated in King James's Bible by 
thirty-two vernacular terms, according to Thorn ; and Bagster, Avho 
lies before me, gives it more than twenty meanings. Yet he bases 
an argument, and makes it exclusive, upon a term that has such a 
variety of meanings, and is translated by such a variety of vernacu- 
lar terms in the New Testament itself. 

The primary meaning of the term, is locality, and that is 
what it means in this place. It does riot tell any thing about how 
John baptized, but where he baptized. He baptized in Jordan and 
in the wilderness, and beyond Jordan, and not a word is said about 
the mode hi which that baptism was administered. I do not ask 
you to take my mere assertion for this ; I will prove from the pas- 
sages I have quoted, that the word means locality in these places 
where it occurs. 

In John x: 40, we read as follows: "And went away again 
beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first baptized, and there 
he abode." 

When John's baptism is first mentioned, it is said, "There went 
out to him all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and 
were baptized of him in Jordan." If the brother contends that 
John went right down into the waters of Jordan, deep enough to 
dip those who applied to him for baptism, then he must admit that 
Jesus abode in the water; for an inspired writer declares that Jesus 
went into the place where John first baptized, and there he abode. If he 
believes that, he must certainly believe that Jesus Christ was a 
Campbellite. See what absurdities men sometimes run into. Do 
you not see, plainly, that it denotes locality, and that the word which 
is rendered "in," simply means " at," in this connection. It is said 
that Jesus abode in the place. I call the brother's attention to the 
fact that it is the place where John baptized. 

There is another passage which settles this thing: "These things 



202 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptiz- 
ing." That is, on the other side of Jordan. The word, in this place, 
denotes simply locality, and these passages prove it; and whenever 
he takes the position that John went down into the waters of 
Jordan, to a sufficient depth to immerse those whom he baptized, 
he must take along with him the declaration that Jesus went into 
the place where John had gone, and there abode. It will not do to 
say that he went to Bethabara and abode there, for it is the very 
place. Language can not be more positive and more emphatic. "I 
venture to say, that in these passages there is nothing at all to indi- 
cate mode. The word simply denotes the place where the thing 
was done, and has no reference to the manner in which it was done. 

I desire to show you into what absurdities and what contradic- 
tory statements good and great men may sometimes be betrayed 
by this exclusive idea of immersion. The learned Alexander 
Campbell, in his debate with Dr. Rice (page- 185), says that the 
literal meaning of the word " en," is always "in," and that it never 
means at, with, or by, except by figure. I want to read a few 
passages from the New Testament, and see whether it is used in a 
literal or figurative sense. "Swear not at all; neither ("en") by 
heaven, nor (en) by thy head." Is the common translation "by" 
figurative in this passage? Will my friend say so? Mr. C. says 
it is. Again: "They that take the sword shall perish ("en") with 
the sword." Is that figurative? Mr. C. says " en is neither at, with, 
nor by, except by figure." Once more: "On ("en") these two 
commandments hang all the law and the prophets." "There was a 
man ("en") in the synagogue ("en") with an unclean spirit." 
Alexander Campbell was certainly mistaken. He was driven to 
this error by his erroneous and exclusive idea of baptism. 

I desire to call your attention to one more passage, with refer- 
ence to John's baptism: "And John was baptizing in Enon, 
near Salem, because there was much water there." The term used 
is plural in the original, and means, with its adjective, "many 
waters." There is nothing said to indicate the mode here. If 
much water was necessary for dipping then, why did he leave 
Jordan ? It is sufficient for our purpose to say that no such water, 
as my friend contends for, has ever been found, in this locality, by 
modern travelers. The inference of my friend is, that the much 
water was needed for the purpose of immersing. I venture to say 
further, that all the probabilities favor the idea that John's bap- 
tism was administered by pouring. It had reference to the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit, for John says, "I indeed baptize you with 
water: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." 

I now pass on to notice more particularly the baptism of Jesus. 
In Matthew iii: 16, it is said that Jesus went up out of the water. 
Here the whole proof of immersion is made to rest upon the words 
" out of." It is not said how T he was baptized. It is not said he 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 203 

was immersed, or that the water was sprinkled upon him, or any- 
thing of that kind. The only thing upon which my opponent de- 
pends to prove immersion is the fact that it is said, " he went up 
straightway out of the water." The word rendered ''out of" is 
apo. Schleusner gives it twenty meanings : Bagster defines it, 
"forth, from, away from; hence it variously signifies departure; 
distance of time or place ; avoidance ; riddance ; derivation from a 
quarter, source or material" 

It will not do to base an exclusive argument upon a word so 
variously rendered. You see it could just as well be rendered 
" away from" as "out of." But the following facts, according to 
my judgment, fix the mode of John's baptism. He says, I indeed 
baptize you with water; but he, that is, Christ, shall baptize you 
with the Holy Ghost and with fire. John's baptism had reference 
to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the passage which we have 
just quoted, two things are mentioned, each of which is called 
baptism. In these baptisms we find that different elements are 
used. If we can ascertain, correctly, how either of these elements 
(whether water or spirit) was applied, then, since the same thing 
was done with the other element, the question is settled forever.. 
We now call your attention to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, to 
which John's baptism referred, and which was given on the day 
of Pentecost. I will read the account of it as given in Acts 2 : 
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were 
all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a 
sound "from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled 
all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto 
them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." The new 
translation, upon which my brother places such a high estimate, ren- 
ders the language of John as follows: "I indeed immerse you in 
w r ater, but he shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost." Do you see 
any immersion here ? Unfortunately for the new translation, the 
word pour, in the 17th verse, is retained, which does not agree with 
the idea of immersion. A baptism of fire rested upon each of them, 
and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. How was the ele- 
ment, spirit, administered ? Peter gives an answer which ought to 
settle the question forever, when he says: "This is that which was 
spoken by the Prophet Joel ; And it shall come to pass in the 
last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 
Joel and Peter designate that which John and Jesus called bap- 
tism, by the specific term pour. We have ascertained how the 
element spirit was administered ; and is it not evident, then, that 
the element water was administered in the same w r ay? Now the 
brother will tell you that the Spirit was not really poured out, but 
that the language is figurative. Well, suppose that it is figurative, 



204 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

does not the Holy Spirit know how to use figures correctly, and 
can the term pour represent immersion ? Never ! So he may 
oppose the idea of the literal "pouring out of the Spirit," if he 
chooses, and contend that the expression is figurative. But is it not 
evident that, if it was -designed to represent immersion, that the 
wrong term was used ? Again, at the house of Cornelius it is 
written that, while Peter spake, the "Holy Ghost fell on them that 
heard the word ;" and Peter, in giving an account of this transaction, 
says, that the " Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning," 
and adds, " then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that 
he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized 
with the Holy Ghost." Is there any resemblance between the de- 
scent of the Holy Ghost, or the cloven tongues like as of fire, that 
sat upon each of them, and immersion ? Was there any thing in 
the gift of the Holy Spirit which is designated by the terms " pour" 
and " fell," to suggest to the mind of Peter the idea of water bap- 
tism, if that baptism was administered by immersion only ? He 
reasons upon the association of ideas : One idea suggests another, 
because of the likeness or similarity between them. Is there any 
similarity between the pouring out of the Holy Spirit and immer- 
sion? None whatever ! 

Having shown that the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apos- 
tles and first Christians is called baptism, and that the action is ex- 
pressed or designated by the terms "pour" and " fell," why may we 
not call the pouring of water, baptism ? If the pouring of Spirit is 
baptism, why is not the pouring of water baptism ? I wish to make 
this thing plain. Suppose that you had never seen nor heard of such 
a thing as baptism, would you have any correct idea of it? If I 
should tell you that on yesterday, in the city of Lexington, I bap- 
tized forty persons with water, you would not know what I had 
done ; and suppose I tell you that I propose to baptize as many 
as will receive it this afternoon with alcohol. You come, in utter 
ignorance of the nature of baptism, to witness the performance. 
Half a dozen candidates present themselves to receive this bap- 
tism, and I take the alcohol and pour it upon them. Now, I ask 
you, in all candor, if nine hundred and ninety-nine persons out of 
every thousand who witnessed this baptism, if they had never seen 
the like before, would not infer that I baptized those persons at 
Lexington, on yesterday, by- pouring the water upon them? I be- 
lieve they would. If, then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was ad- 
ministered by the Spirit's being poured upon those who received it, 
and the very same thing was done with water, as John and Christ both 
declare, in the name of common sense and reason, why was not the 
water administered by pouring? We have, I suppose, no warrant 
for pouring? None at all ! If the brother will show as clear a case 
of immersion from the Bible, as we have shown of pouring, I will 
yield the point in dispute. We have shown a clear case of baptism 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 205 

by pouring, for the Holy Spirit was poured upon them, and the 
Scriptures call it baptism. 1 will make a starting point of this. I 
have not yet called your attention to a single case of Christian bap- 
tism by water ; for nearly all parties agree that Christian baptism 
was not instituted until the day of Pentecost. 

How would Peter have reasoned, if, when God had just baptized 
him with the Holy Spirit, by pouring it upon him, he had com- 
menced dipping the people, and called that action baptism ? Had 
you been there, and had God sent down his Spirit upon your heart, 
and assured you that the promise of the Savior to baptize with the 
Holy Spirit was then fulfilled, what would have been your idea, as to 
the correct mode of water baptism? I think the supposition that the 
three thousand converts, made on the day of Pentecost, were im- 
mersed, is unreasonable. The probabilities are ail in favor of the 
idea that they were baptized by affusion, because God had just ad- 
ministered a baptism of the Holy Spirit, by affusion, to those persons 
who were to administer water baptism. The probabilities are de- 
cidedly against dipping in this case. In the first place, there was 
no place in which to dip. My good brother can not, for the life of 
him, find a single place for immersing that multitude. The great 
laver at the temple, and all the facilities for immersing, were under 
the control of the Jews, the bitter enemies of Jesus and the apostles, 
and it is not reasonable to suppose that they would have allowed 
them the use of the temple, or their cisterns, for the purpose of im- 
mersing into the name of Jesus. In the second place, if they could 
have found a suitable place for immersing, it was physically im- 
possible for the apostles to have immersed that multitude. If you 
wiil count the number of persons to be baptized, and those who were 
to administer the rite, and mark the length of time necessary to im- 
merse each man, you will discover that it could not have been done. 
Twelve apostles could not immerse three thousand persons in the 
given time; but our immersionist friends bring forward the seventy 
disciples to assist the apostles ; then they have eighty-two adminis- 
trators ; but that only increases the difficulty, instead of removing 
it, for, as we have already shown, they can not find one place in 
which to immerse, and if they could find such a place, but one ad- 
ministrator could occupy it ; but they must find eighty -two places for 
their eighty-two administrators; so this, then, only augments the diffi- 
culty. I do not say that they were not immersed, nor do I say that 
they were baptized by affusion; I w r ant you to bear that in mind. I 
simply say that the probabilities are in favor of affusion. If my op- 
ponent says that they were immersed, I want him to prove it, and he 
must prove it, or give up his exclusive system. Here is the first case 
of Christian baptism, and we have shown insurmountable difficulties 
in the way of immersion. 

The probabilities are in favor of affusion. My opponent affirms 
that this baptism was performed by immersion, and I call upon him 



206 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to prove it. It is simply said that they were baptized ; but he will 
go back and begin with "bapto," and "baptizo," and "dip," and "noth- 
ing but dip," and all that sort of thing, to prove that they were im- 
mersed. But I will coufine him to the Xew Testament. I will ex- 
plain these terms by their simple grammatical and logical connec- 
tions. I do not desire auy Greek lexicons, or any classical authors 
to assist me, because there are no difficulties in the way of affusion. 
None on my side of the question. All the probabilities are in my 
favor, and against him, yet he affirms an exclusive mode. I want 
him to prove his position by the word of God. If he will do so, I 
shall be perfectly satisfied, and will never sprinkle another infant 
as long as I live. Until he does prove it, I intend to continue in 
this apostolic way, God being my helper. If my opponent will pro- 
duce one single case of immersion, to sustain his position, from the 
Bible, as conclusive as the one which I have brought forward — that 
is, the baptism of the apostles, and the one hundred and twenty per- 
sons with them, by the affusion of the Holy Spirit, then I will yield 
the point in debate. 

We will go, in the next place, to the house of Cornelius. An- 
other case of Christian baptism is here recorded. We read, that 
while Peter preached the remission of sins through faith in Jesus 
Christ, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, and Peter says : " It fell on 
them as on us apostles at the beginning." Again he says: "Can 
any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have 
received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Is there any thing to in- 
dicate mode here? Nothing at all. He does not even say that they 
were baptized; but he asks the question, "Can any man forbid wa- 
ter?" etc. This is the second case of Christian baptism. My brother 
assumes that these men were immersed. I want him to prove it. I 
do not say that they were baptized by affusion, but I say that the 
probabilities are in favor of that theory, because the language indi- 
cates that the water was to be brought to them, and not that they 
were to be taken to the water. He does not say: "Can any man 
forbid that these men should go out and search for water, that I may 
dip them ? " but, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
be baptized ? " 

The next case that claims our attention is the case of the eunuch. 
I will read the portion which gives an account of it : 

"And he commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went down 
both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of 
the Lord caught away Philip." Is there any thing here to indicate 
mode? They both went down into the water. That is one trans- 
action. And then they came up out of the water. We have already 
examined the expression "out of," and shown you that it is a term 
of various import. I believe that another word is here used. The 
word is eh, which is susceptible of a variety of renderings. It is 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 207 

just as unfortunate, in this respect, when employed by my brother, 
in support of his theory, as the other terms I have noticed. I wish 
here to lay down some laws of criticism, and call upon Mr. B. and 
his friends to take and apply them to every case of baptism recorded 
in the New Testament, and see whether or not they are correct. 

Kosser, in his work on baptism, lays down the following rules: 

(1.) "When voluntary motion into a place is signified, 'eis' is 
used before both the verb and noun, or pronoun. 

(2.) "When voluntary motion out of a place is signified, 'ek,' 
or 'ex,' is used before both the verb and noun, or pronoun. 

(3.) " When motion to, or unto, a place, is signified, ' eis' is used 
only before the noun, without the verb and- preposition. 

(4.) "When motion upward or downward from a place, or to a 
place, is expressed, a preposition is used, both in composition with 
the verb, and before the noun, or pronoun; but in this case, the 
prepositions are not the same, nor of similar import." 

(Time Expired.') 



208 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Mr. Fitch has filled his hour in delivering the speech to which 
you have just listened; still, in harmony with the principle which 
he laid down yesterday, I wish to say I do not believe it. No, sir, 
I do not believe one word of this speech. My reason for this is, 
that he has only uttered it once— -just once. It would be wrong, 
under the circumstances, to force upon him the responsibility of the 
speech he has made, when it is remembered that he said on yesterday 
that he rejected the second of Acts because the apostles had used the 
language but once in all the Bible. He pronounced his speech just 
once, and unless brother Hiner will indorse it, I do not know that I 
ought to answer him. [Bro. Hiner — " I indorse it all."'] He 
says he indorses it. I will proceed. 

One of the rules of our discussion requires that the affirmative 
shall state, and definitely define, his proposition, so that it shall be 
clearly understood. You will observe that my friend attempted no 
definition of his proposition, and, if you have faithfully listened to 
him, you will remember that he made no attempt to prove the prop- 
osition he is here to affirm. The proposition reads : 

" The sprinkling or pouring of water upon a proper subject, by a 
proper person, in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is 
Scriptural baptism/' 

My friend and I have no controversy about the proper subject, or 
the proper person to-day; but I shall be compelled to object to the 
last part of the proposition: that baptism is in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I will not debate that question now, 
for we have not the time to do so ; but I enter my most solemn protest 
against it. From the moment in which the Spirit descended, on 
Pentecost, to this hour, no man was ever baptized in the name of 
the Trinity, by divine authority. Christ said, "All authority is 
given unto me," and he sent them to teach and baptize the nations 
in his name, by virtue of that authority; and the apostles, as he 
had commanded them, invariably baptized in the name of Jesus 
Christ. Divest the proposition of the unnecessary verbiage which 
my friend would force into it, and we have left simply this : The 
sprinkling, or pouring of water upon a person, in the name of the 
Lord Jesus Christ, is Scriptural baptism. 

Mr. Fitch told you that it was not his purpose to prove that 
either sprinkling or pouring was baptism. In addition to this, he has 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 209 

manifested great anxiety, more than once, to get me on the affirm- 
ative — to induce raeto affirm that immersion is baptism. He tried 
to effect that in his preliminary remarks. I want him to understand 
that I am not on the affirmative to-day. His business this morning 
is to affirm that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, and to this work I 
shall hold him throughout this discussion. I know it is unpleas- 
ant, but this is his legitimate work. My business is to deny this 
proposition, and to this end alone I shall labor, in this investigation. 

My friend has made an effort to prove that baptism means to purify 
and to wash, and I believe at last he tried to prove that the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit, on Pentecost, was a pouring. With this single ex- 
ception, he made no attempt at proving his proposition. I desire to 
notice a few points in the first part of his speech, and then to pass 
on' to the consideration of the argument I have to present against 
this proposition. 

He says he does not contend that any one mode is specified in the 
Scriptures; and, indeed, he objects to an exclusive mode. He does 
not contend that any one mode is specified. Indeed ! Then, when- 
ever he sprinkles a person, or pours water upon that person, he does 
that for which he has no specific authority — for which he has no 
authority from the living God. Besides, if the Word of God does 
not specify any mode, how does he expect to derive, from that Word, 
any proof of his favorite mode of pouring or sprinkling ? He yields 
the whole question, in this admission. If the Scripture does not 
specify either sprinkling or pouring as baptism, then he has no au- 
thority for either, and his proposition tails to the ground. 

My friend entered, this morning, into some statistics. I told him, 
the other day, his statistics were false, and, from that time to this, 
he has produced no proof of them. I reiterate the statement, that 
they are absolutely untrue. As an evidence of this fact, I want to 
call your attention to the religious history of the world, as it stands. 
The Roman Catholic Church, in the first place, numbers one hundred 
and seventy-five millions. The Catholics are far more numerous than 
he makes it appear. The Roman Catholics all tell us that immersion 
was the primitive and scriptural practice, and that they have changed 
the rite to sprinkling and pouring, by the authority of the Church. 
In addition to this, the whole of the Greek Church still practice im- 
mersion. We have, then, fully one-third of the Protestant Pedobap- 
tist Church that believe in, or practice, immersion. Even in the 
gentleman's own Church, this is the case ; and yet, he has gathered all 
this aggregate number of Greeks, Roman Catholics, and Protestants, 
and put them down as anti-immersionists. The whole statement is 
untrue, and I challenge the gentleman for his statistics. The great 
majority of this world are to-day on the side of immersion. The 
Roman Catholics will tell you they changed the ordinance, as they 
claim they had a right to do. Besides that, a great part of the 
Pedobaptists in this country believe in and practice immersion; and 
18 



210 BROOKS AST) FITCH DEBATE. 

yet, my friend tells us they are all to be counted against us. On 
the contrary, we positively affirm that five-sixths of all professed 
Christians are witnesses for immersion. 

But again : It is strange, he says, that the apostles always found 
water in which to immerse. I do not know that this is any more 
wonderful than that we modern immersionists always find water 
where we go. Yet it is a wonderful thing that those primitive 
Christians could find water, and did find water. It is hardly worth 
while to notice such statements. AVe proceed to the argument. 

My friend was afraid, this morning, that we would go into the 
classics. He seemed to be very much concerned lest we should 
have something to do with them on this occasion, and he tried to 
break the force of what I might have to say, by saying, "I do not 
care a fig about your baptizo and your bapto" etc. I wish to make 
a single criticism here. This word baptizo is the word that the 
Spirit of God uses in the Bible. It is stamped by the inspiration 
of God's Spirit ; yet my friend says he does not care a fig for it. 
God help the spirit of the man who can stand up and say he does 
not care for the Inspired AA r ord ! Oh, to what depths of extrava- 
gance are we carried by fanaticism and partyism ! You might as 
well say you do not care a fig for all the word of God, as to say 
you do not care for one word ; for the Son of God says, if you take 
from the words of this book, your part shall be taken out of the 
Book of Life. I do not know that my friend understands fully the 
responsibility of his position. AVhen I heard the expression fall 
from his lips. I was astonished at the titter that went over this house 
among his rriends ; they, too, do not care a fig for this Inspired AA r ord. 

Do you know the sense in which my friend uses the term " Camp- 
bellite"? He uses it as an opprobrious term, aud he likes the word. 
My friend knows and adopts this use of it, and yet he flippantly 
told you, yesterday, that the Son of God must have been a 
Campbellite ! The Son of the Living God has a term applied to 
him which is a term of opprobrium, in every sense of the word, and 
that by a professed preacher of the Gospel ! Has my friend no 
more respect for the Son of God and Mary than to apply to him a 
term like that? Sincerely do I pity the thoughtlessness of the man. 

But I go to the classics, notwithstanding his objection ; I go not 
there for the purpose of separating what is united together ; I go 
not there to prove that immersion is baptism ; but I go there for 
this: To show that sprinkling and pouring are not in the word bap- 
tizo, as used in the classics. 

My first argument is based upon the fact that the word was never 
used, during the two thousand years in which the Greek tongue 
was a living language, by any writer, either literally, metaphorically, 
or metonymically, in the sense of sprinkle or pour. I have some 
use for the classics to-day. This word was never used in either 
sense, and we have nothing to do with the question whether it was 



MR. BROOK8's FIRST REPLY. 211 

used in the sense of immerse. I want the gentleman to find one 
passage where a classic writer uses baptizo to mean sprinkle or 
pour. We have nothing to do with bapto, for that is not 
the word we are discussing. JBaptizo is the word always used by 
the Savior and apostles. He will not find the use of that word in 
either sense in any of the classics. I hold in my hand a work by 
one of the most distinguished scholars of this age — Dr. Conant. 
He says, in the introduction of this work : 

" The meaning of the Greek word baptizein has been so obscured 
by the denominational controversies which have sprung up within 
the last two centuries, that nothing less than a complete historical 
exhibition of its use, both in Pagan and Christian Greek literature, 
would suffice to place the matter in a clear light. 

" The entire argument is set before the English reader, in his 
own language ; the authorities for the use of the Greek word being 
fully given, in translations made as literal as possible. 

" The examples of the common meaning and use of the word, in 
Sections I and II, are from every period of Greek literature in 
which the word occurs. They include all that have been found by 
lexicographers, and by those who have written professedly on this siib- 
ject ; and these, with the examples added from my own leading, ex- 
haust the use of this word in Greek literature.'" — Conant on Bap., 
Introd. 

Dr. Conant tells us he has here exhausted the use of this word, 
and he gives us two hundred and thirty-five instances of its occur- 
rence in the Greek classics, and there is not one single instance 
in which it can be translated by either sprinkle or pour. Here 
we can have the benefit of both the Greek and the English trans- 
lation, and in not one instance is it used in either sense. 

Now, suppose you take the English word " dip," and follow its 
history for two thousand years, and under all circumstances, when 
used by poets and philosophers, historians, tradesmen, etc., and you 
find that it was never used in the sense of sprinkle or pour. 
In every instance of its use, literally or metaphorically, we find it 
means to put into some fluid or penetrable substance. Now, what 
would you think of a man who, in translating this word into the 
French, would persist in saying it meant sprinkle or pour, and 
should assert that it was a generic word ? This is as specific as any 
other English word he can find. With just as much reason may 
he say that baptizo means to sprinkle or pour. 

My second argument is founded upon the fact that not a single 
Greek lexicon gives sprinke or pour as a definition of baptizo. I 
presume to say that Dr. Rice was just as competent, and had 
as many advantages and opportunities to procure the best and the 
greatest number of the lexicons of earth as any man on this conti- 
nent, and that he had as many friends in this and the old world lo 
assist him. Yet Dr. Ilice could not find one that gave such a defi- 



212 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

liition of baptizo. My friend is committed on the subject of lexi- 
cons. He lately delivered a discourse on baptism in this town, to 
which I replied. He took the position that lexicons were the high- 
est authority, and in proof of the proposition that baptizo meant 
sprinkle or pour, he quoted Webster's definition of the word bap- 
tism. He thought nobody would reply to him, and he read the 
definition of an English word from an English lexicon to show the 
meaning of a Greek word. This was an ingenious effort on the part 
of the gentleman. I will not say he intended to deceive, but did he 
not know that Mr. Webster's lexicon was of no authority in this mat- 
ter? Why did he not turn to the Greek lexicon ? He quoted Web- 
ster's definition, which defines an English word, to prove to us that the 
meaning of the original Greek word was simply to apply water to 
the person as a religious sacrament. The gentleman said, upon that 
occasion, that lexicons were of the very highest authority. Now, 
Mr. Fitch, I defy you to produce before this audience one, among 
the many lexicons that have been written, and to which Rice and' 
Campbell appealed in their celebrated debate, that gives either 
sprinkle or pour as a definition of this word. Not a Greek lexicon 
extant thus defines the word. 

But again : I propose just here to allude to another fact. My 
friend, this morning, intimated to us that this word was a generic 
term, and that it meant to wash. He will tell you some of these 
lexicons give wash as a secondary meaning of the word. We 
grant you that fact. Yet to dip is the primary meaning, as given by 
all; while some of them, indeed, give wash as one of the secondary 
meanings of the word. Now I want to look for a moment at this 
question, and to dispose of it briefly. 

In the first place, suppose that I grant that baptizo sometimes, 
and in a secondary sense, means wash. What does my friend gain 
by the admission ? Washing may be done where neither sprinkling 
nor pouring is practiced. Washing is more frequently done by im- 
mersion. My friend has to prove that sprinkling or pouring — not 
washing — is scriptural baptism. He will not come to the question 
one single time to-day. He will make it wash and purify ; any thing 
but what he came here to prove to this people. 

In the second place, my friend will not call the thing he does 
washing, when he only puts his hand in a little water and just lays 
it on the forehead of an infant in that way. [Putting his hand on 
the lamp.] He will not have the temerity to say this is washing. 
Clearly, then, if he should prove that baptizo means to w r ash, he gains 
nothing for his proposition. 

In the third place, if it means wash, it is only the metonymical 
use of the word — putting an effect for the act itself. Dr. Rice 
quotes tw r elve learned lexicographers, everyone of whom are against 
the doctor. His own witnesses fail to stand by him, and the great- 
est lights among the Pedobaptists on this continent disagree with 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY 213 

him. I quote a passage from his debate, in which he yields the 
point in" controversy. He says : 

"Let me here distinctly remark that I am not contending that 
theTVord baptlzo definitely expresses pouring or sprinkling." — Camp- 
bell and Bice Debate, p. 70. 

Thus the doctor yields just what my friend is here to prove. Well, 
if Dr. Rice, with all his great learning and powers of debate, would 
not even make an attempt to prove our proposition, will my friend 
succeed ? How, then, did Dr. Rice make it appear that baptlzo meant 
to wash, to cleanse ? The doctor says baptlzo means to wash, to 
cleanse, etc. An object can be washed without immersing it; hence 
baptlzo does not always mean to immerse. An object can be washed 
by pouring ; hence baptlzo means to pour. This is, in substance, the 
argument by which he reaches his conclusion. By the doctor's own 
confession, then, this is the only argument by which baptlzo may be 
made to mean sprinkle, or pour. It does not mean, necessarily, to 
wash, because a thing may be baptized in fire or blood. This defi- 
nition is based only upon an effect put for the act, and that not a 
necessary effect. I do not kuow how better to expose this fallacy 
than by asking your close attention to the following illustration, 
drawn from the word dip: 

When any thing is dipped or immersed in water, it is washed or 
wet (but these are the effects of dipping) ; hence to dip does not nec- 
essarily, but only by metonymy, mean to wash or wet. Now, to il- 
lustrate: If a piece of red-hot iron be dipped in water, one effect is 
to cool it; hence, metonymically, dip may mean to cool, as well as 
to wet or wash. But the iron may be cooled by pouring or sprink- 
ling water on it; hence, 'according to Dr. Rice and Mr. Fitch, dip 
means to pour or sprinkle. 

Just let me state this illustration once more; I want the most hum- 
ble to comprehend it: By dipping a thing into water, we wet, or 
moisten, or wash it, as the case may be; therefore dipping means to 
wet, wash, moisten. But dipping a piece of hot iron into the water 
cools the iron; therefore dipping means to cool. But the cooling 
may be effected by pouring or sprinkling; therefore to dip means to 
pour or sprinkle. And again: One effect of dipping hot iron in wa- 
ter is to heat the water : but water may be heated by placing fire 
under a pot; therefore dipping means to put fire under the pot! In 
the same way baptlzo means to sprinkle or pour. 

Such is the logic by which Dr. Rice and my friend would deceive 
the world, and make them believe that this is a generic word. He 
can not show a single thing of baptlzo that I can not show of dip. 
It is the same sophistry by which he attempts to prove that bap^sm 
is the application of water to the person. 

Iron may be cooled by dipping, but it may be cooled by applying 
water to the iron; hence, dipping means to apply water. Just so the 
person may be washed by baptism. But the person may be washed 



214 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

by pouring or sprinkling; therefore pouring or sprinkling is baptism, 
and hence the application of water to the person is baptism. You 
dip a stick in a coloring fluid, and that stick is dyed or painted. But 
this may be effected by a brush ; therefore to paint with a brush 
means to dip. This is the logic of these gentlemen. But we 
pass on. 

My third argument is based upon Mark i : 4, 5 : "John did baptize 
in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the re- 
mission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, 
and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river 
of Jordan, confessing their sins." 

Did they go out to the Jordan because they wanted to be sprinkled? 
Is there any thing of that in the circumstances connected with the 
transactions mentioned here ? Does my friend go to the Jordan, and 
to large bodies of water, to sprinkle the people ? Was he sprinkled 
in the river? Nothing of the kind. There is not one similar cir- 
cumstance connected with the baptisms of John and with that of my 
friend. If you want to know what baptism is, go into the word of 
God, and read this passage, and the circumstances connected with this 
baptism. As I predicted, just as soon as the gentleman comes to the 
Bible he begins to translate. This is a peculiar fact, to which I again 
invite attention. The gentleman is opposed to us translating. He 
does not want us to translate baptizo, because he knows that, if it is 
ever translated, it will be translated immerse. Again : No scholar 
or man of letters ever translated it by sprinkle or pour. He knows 
it, and I want to impress the fact upon you. ISo; there is not a 
scholar among these gentlemen here this morning, who has any re- 
gard for his reputation, who would venture such a translation. If 
there be, I want him to take up the Bible, and thus render it, and 
put his name to it, and give it to me. You will not do it, Mr. Fitch ; 
you dare not do it. There is not one of them who will do it — not 
one of them. Do you not know that, if it could be rendered in that 
way, they would do it? If there was one occurrence of the word in 
all the Bible that could be rendered pour or sprinkle, they would do it. 
But has any one done it? No; they will not do it, tor they know 
every scholar on earth would laugh them to scorn. 

In the case of John's baptism, my friend begins to translate. I 
enter my solemn protest against the spirit of licentiousness that 
enters the Bible in this way. "I am opposed to translating it, yet 
will translate it just whenever it does not suit my taste or theory." 
Well, how have King James's revisers translated this little Greek 
preposition, to which my friend alludes? It occurs two thousand 
and forty-five times in the New Testament. The rule with them 
was to translate it by " in," because that is its primary meaning. This 
my friend will not deny. If he will, he does not understand the 
alphabet of the Greek language. They translate by " in " in two thou- 
sand instances in which it occurs. "E)i" indeed, has a great many 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 215 

definitions, but the question is, what does it mean here? A word is 
always rendered by its primary meaning when it will make sense, 
and, unless the context forbids, it must ever be rendered by its 
first or primary meaning. This they knew, and when they came 
to the expression " ebaptizonto en to Iordanee," they rendered it 
" baptized in Jordan." They do not dare to render it in any other 
way. And yet these great modern scholars, (?) these men who do not 
know any thing of Greek, at once begin to revise this good old version 
and take " in" out of the way — because it is opposed to their theory. 
But, not satisfied with this, we are told that John baptized away 
over beyond Jordan, at Bethabara. Indeed ! Well, the very 
name Bethabara signifies " the House of the Ford." Now, because 
the Savior went into that place where John was baptizing, and 
abode there, he reasons that it was not in the Jordan he baptized. 
I wish to show you now the — I will not say quibbles, for that is 
unparliamentary — but the childish sophistries that are put forth on 
an occasion of this kind : Suppose I were to come to your town to 
hold a protracted meeting, and should write to the editor of the 
Apostolic Times, brother Wilkes, and say, "I baptized twenty 
persons in Winchester;" or to brother Franklin, in Cincinnati, 
and say, "I baptized twenty-five persons in the baptistry, or (if the 
Jordan was rolling along by the edge of this place) in the Jordan." 
Now, would not both reports be correct ? And because they were 
baptized in Winchester, would it appear that they wore not baptized 
in the Jordan ? So my brother Wiles baptizes in the Ohio River, and 
yet he baptizes in Covington. Still my friend will lay hold of a little 
thing like that to cast a shadow of doubt on what the Baptist did in 
the Jordan. Besides, he puts the place of this baptism away out in 
the wilderness. Did not my friend know that the Jordan passed 
through the wilderness of Judea? He baptized away out in the 
wilderness ! I wonder what became of all the camels and horses 
the Pedobaptists usually take along with them to John's baptism. 
So anxious is Mr. Shaffer to get clear of immersion, that he has 
John packing his supplies of water out into the wilderness, when he 
could have gone to the Jordan and found water in abundance. I 
suppose they packed on their backs water enough for all the camels, 
also, upon which they rode to John's baptism. The simple fact is, 
that John baptized in the Jordan, at Bethabara, and in the wilder- 
ness through which it ran. The Jordan ran through the wilderness 
of Judea. He baptized them in the Jordan. The word en means 
in in this passage. To this the learned all agree, and King James's 
revisers rendered it thus, and they are right. 

Again, I pass on to my fourth argument. Mark i : 9, and 
Matthew iii: 16: 

"Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John 
in (eis) Jordan." 



216 BEOOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

"And Jesus, when lie was baptized, went straightway up out of 
the water (apo)." 

My friends, I want to call your attention to one thing. I do not 
say I will always accept King James's translation, for in some 
instances it is wrong; but I will call your attention to the fact that 
I have not objected to King James yet ; my friend invariably does, 
when it does not suit him. 

He says Christ was not baptized in Jordan, but at Jordan. He 
tells us this word eis does not always mean in, and that it also has 
many definitions ; yet he did not confidently tell you what it meant 
here. I can not get him a single time to tell us what the original 
means in any given place. Why does he not tell us ? No, no ; he 
will not do it. Here his friends tell us it means at, and yet the 
Savior came up out of (apo) the water. But my friend tells you that 
apo literally means " from the water." True, and it may be rendered 
more literally, "from within the water." King James's revisers trans- 
late these words just as they read : " Jesus was baptized of John in 
Jordan," and " went straightway up out of the water ;" and I call 
upon my friend to render these words in any other way. " In," or 
" into," is .the primary significance of the word eis. Then, if it makes 
sense to render the passage baptized in Jordan, you must render it 
thus ; or, if it does not make sense, then you may re-translate. He 
tells you, without one word of authority, that it means at the Jordan. 
If he was baptized in. Jordan, then, of course, he went down into the 
Jordan. I know it is very difficult to get a popular audience to see a 
Greek criticism. It is much more easy to throw out these objections 
than to clear them up before a popular assembly. But I want to im- 
press this fact upon your minds. Remember that, by the rule of trans- 
lation, you are to render by the primary meaning, when it will make 
sense. He will not deny that in, or into, is the primary meaning of 
the word eis. Then, by this rule, you can not render it in any other 
way. I desire to invite your attention to similar constructions of this 
word with baptizo. Some instances of this usage will more fully con- 
vince you than I can do by any other means. I quote examples of 
its occurrence in this construction, as given on page 62 of Conant's 
great work : 

Ex. 61. "(Around) every thing that is immersed into it;" Ex. 
64. "Plunge thyself into the sea;" Ex. 67. "Dipping his hand into 
the blood;" Ex. 68. "He plunged the whole sword into his own 
neck;" Ex. 81. "And plunging others with their boats and huts 
into the lake;" Ex. 84. "I immersed him into wine;" Ex. 119. 
"Plunged by drunkenness into sleep." 

Now, restoring the word baptize in each case, I want to render 
the preposition eis as my friend has done, to show you how ridicu- 
lous is his position. Remember that the word baptizo is in every 
case, in construction with eis, before the object or element in which 
the action takes place. We have, then, according to Dr. Fitch: 



FIRST REPLY. 217 

"Every thing that is baptized at it ; " " Baptize thyself at the sea ;" 
"Baptize his hand at the blood ;" "Baptized the whole sword at his 
own neck ;" "Baptized others with their boats and huts at the lake;" 
"I baptized at wine;" "Baptized by drunkenness at sleep." 

My fifth argument is based upon John iii : 23: "And John also 
was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water 
there ; and they came and were baptized." 

"Why was John baptizing there ? Because there was much water 
there. Now, then, could we with propriety say Christ was sprinkled 
in the Jordan, or that John sprinkled the people in the Jordan, or 
that he sprinkled at Enon, because there was much water there? 
Does my friend go to places to sprinkle or pour his subjects, because 
there is much water there? No, sir. John immersed at Enon, 
because there was much water there. This is the reason given by 
inspiration why John baptized at that place. Then John's mode de- 
manded much water. My friend's mode does not demand much 
water, hence he does not go wdiere there is much. He told us, with 
Shaffer, that this expression "much water" meant "many waters." 
I believe the use of the phrase in the New Testament is confined to 
John's writings. He uses it in the book of Revelation: The voice of 
God being "as the voice of many waters." Did he mean by many 
waters the little "drippings from the rocks," of which Shaffer 
speaks? Again: He represents the mystic mother of Babylon as 
sitting upon many waters. Did he mean the little drops of water 
that gurgled from the rocks, and ran down in a little stream, "so 
small as to render immersion impracticable"? This they tell us in 
one breath; and yet, in the next, "that a great quantity of water 
was present there, sufficient to supply the innumerable company of 
horses and camels upon which the people rode to John's baptism." 
This is in keeping with their system. Dr. Barclay, who was in Jeru- 
salem for years, discovered, and distinctly marked out this spot. 
This fact my friend does not seem to know. To this day, there " is 
much water there," as there was eighteen centuries ago,' when John 
baptized there, because there wan much water there, and for no other 
reason. My friend never sprinkles anywhere, because there is much 
water. 

Again: My sixth argument is founded upon Matthew xx : 22: 
"Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be 
baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ?" 

This is the metaphorical use of the word. Will my friend tell us 
that this baptism, of which the Savior spoke, was sprinkling? Let 
us read it, and see if this is the word : " Are ye able to drink of the 
cup that I shall drink of, and to be sprinkled with the sprinkling 
that I am sprinkled with? or, poured with the pouring that I am 
poured with?" 

Will the gentleman say that the suffering of the Son of God may 
be represented by the few drops of water he pours upon the forehead 
19 



218 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of an infant? Was the suffering of the Son of God just a few drops 
of agony sprinkled upon him? How does the gentleman's position 
sink into insignificance and contempt, when we stand in the presence 
of the Son of Mary, and see. him bathed in agony— see him over- 
whelmed in his unspeakable sufferings ! Then, is sprinkling or pour- 
ing adequate in any way to represent the sufferings of our Lord and 
Savior Jesus Christ ? It dwindles into the insignificance of nothing- 
ness in comparison. The sufferings of the Son of God were more 
than this can represent. 

My seventh argument is based upon Acts viii : 35 : " Then Philip 
opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached 
unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a 
certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth 
hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest, 
thou mayest. And he said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still : and they 
went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he 
baptized him. And w T hen they were come up out of the water, 
the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, and the eunuch saw him 
no more ; and he went on his way rejoicing." 

My friend is at a loss here again. It would seem as if the Spirit 
of inspiration had purposely intended to rebuke the spirit of the 
speech he made this morning ; and it could not have done this better 
than in this quotation : " They came unto a certain water." Now, 
lest some skeptic should say they stopped at the water, it says, " They 
went down into the water." They had already come to the water, 
and now they go down into the water : for eis must be, as it is here 
translated into, and hence it takes them into the water. More than 
that, lest the skeptic should say that Philip stood upon the banks of 
that river, or brook, or creek, and that the eunuch went down just 
with his sandals into the water, getting only his feet wet — to guard, 
I say, against this species of sophistry, the Spirit says : " They both 
went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." But my 
friend says this little preposition does not mean into, but that it 
means to the water. Over yonder on the Jordan, a little while ago, 
it meant at ; now that he has got around here toward Gaza, it means 
not at, but to. Now, do you not see that it does not suit him to 
have it at, and he will put it tof And this lawless and incompetent 
translator stands in your presence to-day, to translate the word of 
God for you, and does it just to suit himself; and that, too, without 
any regard for a single rule regulating the subject. " The word of 
God is just rendered to suit me and my purposes. And yet I am 
opposed to translating." Ek takes them out of the water — both Philip 
and the eunuch. They went down into the water, and now they come 
up out of the water. Ek. means, primarily, out of; and thus the re- 
visers of King James have correctly rendered this particle. Look at 
the case for a moment. They came unto the water, and both went 



MR. BROOKES FIRST REPLY. 219 

down into the water. They had already come unto the water ; now 
then, eis takes them into the water, if it takes them anywhere. They 
had already come to it. They went down into the water ; hence they 
must come up out of the water. But, it will be said, doubtless, that 
the passage does not decide who did the baptizing, Philip or the 
eunuch. "Why," it is said, "if going down into and coming up 
out of the water are necessary parts of baptism, then we can not 
decide which baptized the other." But it decides this: that these 
things are essential to immersion. That they went down into the 
water, and came up out of it, the context determines, and also, who 
did the baptizing: "He baptized him." To say they went down into 
the water to sprinkle or pour him, would be ridiculous. Then there 
is neither sprinkling or pouring in this case. 

But I pass on to the consideration of my eighth argument: "And 
now, why t arriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy 
sins, calling on the name of the Lord." — Acts xxii : 16. 

In this passage, baptism is called a washing ; but is there any thing 
in the character of sprinkling or pouring that represents a washing ? 
My friend is here to affirm that sprinkling or pouring is baptism. 
Is there any thing in what he does that represents to us a washing ? 
Sprinkling a few drops of water on a person, can, under no circum- 
stances, be considered a washing. Ananias says, "Arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
While your body is being washed in the water, your spirit is to be 
washed in the blood of Christ, from all its guilt and stains. 

But again: My ninth argument is founded uj)on Romans vi : 4, 
and Colossians ii: 12: " Therefore Ave are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death: that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
of life." 

" Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from 
the dead." 

I want to call your attention to a fact that my friend admitted in 
his speech the other day 

(Time Expired.) 



220 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My opponent, instead of replying to my speech, this morning, 
spent a considerable part of the time allotted to him, in replying 
to Dr. Rice. I shall not object seriously to that course, if it suits 
him. I have no doubt but that he finds it much- easier to reply to 
an absent opponent than to one who is present. He also manifests 
a desire to get away from me, and to get up a controversy with brother 
Hitier; but, if he gets out of my hands into his, it will be like get- 
ting out of the frying-pan into the fire; so he had better stay where 
he is, if it is uncomfortably hot. 

I am sorry that the brother can not understand me. I think I 
speak audibly enough to be understood ; and I do wish, especially 
when I present an argument, or lay down a proposition, or define a 
term, he would write it down. I do not like to be misrepresented. 
I know that when he reads that book, after it is published, he will 
feel a sense of remorse for having so frequently and so grossly mis- 
represented my statements. He certainly does not hear well. I 
am unwilling to believe that he willfully and knowingly perverts my 
language. He said he w T ould not receive my speech, simply because 
I had said it but once. I have delivered the most of it, substan- 
tially, twice before, and he has heard it, because he told you that 
he had heard me discuss the mode of baptism several years ago, 
and my argument then was substantially what it was this morning. 

But I would remind him that I did not say on yesterday, that I 
rejected the second of Acts, because God had simply, through the 
apostles, spoken the language but once. I do not reject it at all. I 
simply said, that he presented a doctrine, or theory, that came in 
direct contact with numerous plain, unequivocal passages of Scrip- 
ture, founding it upon a single text, a single expression, a term used 
but once, and which is susceptible of a different construction from 
that which he puts upon it. 

And did you see how the gentleman rejected my statistics again 
this morning? I made a statement, which he denied, and called 
upon me to prove. Will my good brother Poynter take the trouble 
to send down to his house and procure the Ecclesiastical Almanac. 
The figures are there — the statistics, as reported by the various 
parties of the religious world — and they are probably as accurate 
as any thing of the kind can be made in the present state of affairs. 
I shall adhere to my statement, and, if he wants to reject it as 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 221 

groundless, he can do so ; but I know this audience will appreciate 
the condition of the gentleman, if he considers himself so hard 
pressed as to be obliged to reject a statement of this kind. 

He said that I admitted, in my speech, that Christ gave no specific 
command for affusion. He is certainly very hard pressed. I made 
no such statement. I said, that Christ did not ordain a specific 
mode to the exclusion of other modes. I assumed that he gave no 
specific command for sprinkling or pouring. I will define my posi- 
tion again. I assume that baptizo, as used in the New Testament 
to designate the rite of baptism is a generic term, and that its re- 
ligious meaning is " a symbolical washing, or purifying" and that wash- 
ing may be performed by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. That 
is the position which I assume. That is the definition which I gave 
of the word ; and yet the gentleman tells you, that I have not de- 
fined my position. Does he want any thing more tangible than 
that? If that is not plain enough, then I am unable to make my- 
self intelligible to him. He wants to know if dashing a little water 
into the face of an infant can be called a washing. I thought, yes- 
day, I had gotten him out of the idea that a man was not washed 
symbolically by throwing water all over him, nor by immersing him. 
When Christ washed the feet of his disciples, he represented by that 
act a principle of religion. Peter thought he should be washed from 
the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, or not at all. Christ 
corrected that erroneous idea of his. I tell the brother, that a few 
drops of water are just as significant as any amount of water. The 
quantity of water used has nothing to do with making it appro- 
priate. One drop is just as expressive as a pint. I hope this will 
satisfy him on this subject. 

He says that Pedobaptists believe in and practice immersion. I 
venture to assert, that there is not a Pedobaptist in all this land 
who believes in immersion as he believes in it — not one. I want 
him to mark that language. I want him to note the distinction I 
make. There is not a single Pedobaptist in the land who believes 
that immersion is baptism simply because it is immersion. We be- 
lieve that immersion is baptism, simply because the person and 
the element, water, are brought into contact with each other, and 
the formula of baptism prescribed by Jesus Christ, is pronounced at 
the time of contact. It is the contact of water with the person 
which constitutes baptism, and not the simple fact that he goes into 
the water and comes up out of it. We do not believe in immersion 
as baptism in the same sense that he does — not at all. 

The brother dared me to render baptizo, " sprinkle." Well, why 
does he not dare me to hang myself, or do something most terrible? 
I consider that it is just as improper to render the word "sprinkle," 
or "pour," as it is to render it "immerse," because "sprinkle," and 
"pour," and "immerse," are all specific terms, and baptizo is a gen- 
eric term, as I proved this morning, by showing it was applicable 



222 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to any washing. It is used in more senses than one in the New 
Testament Scriptures. That is the reason why I do not render it 
"sprinkle," or "pour," and the reason why I contend it is not to 
be translated by any specific term. It is a generic term, and Its 
exact meaning can not be given by a single specific term. Just 
here »is where he makes a false issue. He wants to know how we 
can sprinkle a man in Jordan. I have no doubt you can sprinkle 
him in Jordan as well as you can plunge him in the wilderness. 
We do not propose to sprinkle him in Jordan. We propose to 
sprinkle the water upon him, and bring the man and the water in 
contact, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
and then the man is baptized. 

But the good brother made a criticism upon the expression " In 
the name of Jesus Christ." The very same word is used when we are' 
told to believe in Christ. It is believe eis Christ. It should read, 
"believe into Christ," as well as " baptized into Christ." That does 
not prove any thing, one way or the other, and it is immaterial 
whether we admit the correctness of it or not. 

I thought yesterday that my remarks with reference to Alexander 
Campbell would have enabled the brother to discover that I used 
the term "Campbellite" in no invidious sense. I meant no offense, 
and my reply to his remarks on this subject is, that it is exceedingly 
inconsistent for him to become indignant because I used the expres- 
sion Campbellite, when he compared Methodist preachers to the 
false, ungodly prophets of Baal. Persons living in glass houses should 
not throw stones. They ought to be exceedingly careful what sort 
of weapons they employ, and where they direct them. 

He asserts that washing can be done without sprinkling or pour- 
ing, and wants to know how sprinkling a little water, in baptism, 
can be called a washing. I will reply that washing may be per- 
formed without dipping; then how is dipping washing? 

I will return to my direct argument when I have noticed one or 
two more specimens of the logic used by my friend. In the first 
place, he animadverted on an expression which I may have used. 
I do not remember exactly about it. "I do not care a fig for the 
word." If he is willing to make capital out of such an expression 
as that, he can do so ; I am perfectly willing. He is not advanc- 
ing the interests of his cause very much, however, by such speeches. 
I repeat it, so far as the word is concerned, as used by the Greek 
classics, I don't care a fig for it. The uses to~which it is put by 
them prove nothing in this discussion. All that we desire to know 
is, how Jesus Christ and his apostles used it. It is their use of it 
that influences my conduct — influences my judgment — and not the 
use made of it by the classics. 

Did you notice another thing, my hearers? When I undertook 
to prove that the probabilities were against John's immersing, be- 
cause an inspired writer states most emphatically that Jesus Christ 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 223 

abode in the very place where John at first baptized, and, that that 
place was Bethabara, beyond Jordan, and he came to reply to it, he 
used the expression " away beyond Jordan." There is quite a dif- 
ference between "beyond Jordan," and " aivay beyond Jordan. " He 
represented me as saying that John was baptizing away out in the 
wilderness, and Jordan running out there, too. Did you know 
before that the Jordan ran through that part of the wilderness? 
He says that John baptized there because there was much water 
there for the purpose of immersing. These words sometimes make 
quite a difference. In this very connection, he was about to apply 
the term "quibbler" to me, and then he thought he would not use 
it. When he feels like using such an expression again, I hope he 
will remember " aivay out in the wilderness," and " away beyond 
Jordan." 

Next, I was held up to the audience as a beautiful specimen of a 
translator, and it was insinuated that I could translate just to suit my 
own convenience. I have just as much right to translate to suit my 
theory as any one else. It is perfectly right for me to do so, if I am 
competent ; and that is a point in regard to which he is not called upon 
to decide. He tells you that when they w-ere baptizing in Jordan, I 
said it was at Jordan ; and when Philip and the eunuch came unto 
a certain water, and went down "into that water," then I said it w T as 
"to the water." "At Jordan," and "to the water:" well, what is 
the difference between "at the table" and "to the table?" But did 
he tell you that two different words are used? that the word used, 
when it says "were baptized of him in Jordan," is en, and the word 
used when "they both went down into the water" is eis? Then I 
shall translate, and regulate my translations by the context. I shall 
read en "at," and eis "to," if I see fit to do so. "To" is a legitimate 
rendering of eis, as I will prove by quoting some passages in which 
it is contained. I will first give you Bagster's definition of the word. 
He says it means to, as far as, to the extent of, until, against, before, 
in the presence of, in order to, for, with a view to, for the use or service 
of, with reference to, in accordance with; and he also says that it* is 
equivalent to en. We see that to is a legitimate rendering of the 
term. If you will refer also to the twentieth chapter of John, and 
read to the eighth verse, you w 7 ill see how it is there rendered; that it 
does not necessarily mean into, for it could not possibly be rendered 
into in several places where it occurs, in the chapter to which I 
have referred. I will read the passage : "Peter, therefore, went forth, 
and that other disciple, and came (eis) to the sepulcher. So they 
ran both together, and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came 
first (eis) to the sepulcher; and he, stooping dow 7 n and looking in, 
saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon 
Peter following him, and w T ent (eis) into the sepulcher, and seeth 
the linen clothes lie; then went in also the other disciple." The 
rule of criticism to which I referred at the close of my first speech 



224 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

applies here. When voluntary motion into a place is signified, eis 
is used both before, in composition with the verb, and before the noun 
or pronoun. Here are some examples: "Enter into thy closet." Here 
eis is used in composition with the verb, and before the noun closet. 
" Enter into the kingdom of heaven." Same construction occurs here 
again. Kosser, in his work on baptism, says that this construction 
occurs in the New Testament one hundred and forty-five times, and 
in every instance it denotes voluntary entrance into a place. And 
nowhere is baptism spoken of in this way. Where it says they went 
down into the water, the preposition is not prefixed to the verb, but 
stands before the noun. So with the rest of them. If the brother 
wants to examine these passages and refute these statements, he can 
do so. 

Rosser also says that he has examined one hundred and seventeen 
passages where the word eh occurs; and, when it means out of, the 
preposition is used both in composition with the verb, and before the 
noun or pronoun, and it is never once so used when speaking of bap- 
tism. So, with reference to the other two rules, he states that there 
is not a single exception in the New Testament, so far as regards 
Christian baptism. There are, of course, exceptions, as there are 
to all general rules, but the rule applies to baptism without an ex- 
ception. 

In the case of Philip and the eunuch, where it is said that both 
went down into the water, the preposition occurs but once. It is 
not prefixed to the verb, but it stands before the noun. It is 
impossible, even supposing that they actually went into the water, to 
prove immersion. He may make eis take them down into the water, 
if he chooses, and then he has to go to the Greek lexicons to show that 
he put him under. I told you that my opponent would not dare to 
undertake to prove immersion without going to the Greek lexicons 
and the classics. And yet he invited me to unite with him on the 
New Testament. If he will prove immersion by the New Testa- 
ment, without going to the classics, I will give up my Methodist 
Discipline and join his church. 

I want to present you with some specimens of the brother's logic. 
John is found at Jordan; therefore he immersed. He is found at 
Enon ; therefore he immersed. He is in Bethabara, beyond Jordan; 
therefore he immersed. John baptized with water; therefore he im- 
mersed. The twelve Apostles baptized three thousand persons in 
Jerusalem, at Pentecost; therefore they immersed them. The jailer 
was baptized in the jail; therefore the jailer was immersed. Philip 
and the eunuch went down both into the water, and came up out of 
the water; therefore one and not the other was immersed. Lydia 
was baptized at a prayer-meeting; therefore Lydia was immersed. 
Cornelius was baptized in his own house ; therefore he was immersed. 
Saul was baptized in the house of Judas; therefore he was immersed. 
We are ''buried bv baptism into death ;" therefore we are to be im- 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 225 

mersed. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and 
in the sea ; therefore they were immersed. 

I defy the brother to prove that in this last case the Israelites were 
immersed, or that there was an immersion in any of the cases men- 
tioned. How were the Israelites immersed in the cloud and in the 
sea unto Moses? We are informed by the Holy Scriptures that the 
waters stood erect upon either hand, and they went through dry- 
shod ; as they passed through the sea the cloud overshadowed them. 
The Psalmist, referring to this fact, says: " The waters saw thee, O 
God, the waters saw ; they were afraid, the depths also were troubled. 
The clouds poured out water." There is a baptism, as I told you 
the other day, and a baptism by affusion, which included men, wo- 
men, and children. I doubt not, Mr. B. will say that they were 
immersed. I have heard this kind of an argument. The waters of 
the sea were upon each side, and the water of the cloud was over 
them, consequently, they were immersed. I suppose, then, if a man 
should happen to pass between two hogsheads filled with water dur- 
ing a shower of rain, that he would be immersed. The Israelites 
were not immersed ; there was no dipping or plunging in the case. 
Our immersionist friends attach great importance to the following 
Scripture: " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death." Is there any thing indicative of mode here? If I say a 
man died of disease, I do not tell what that disease was. It reads, 
" buried by baptism," but it does not inform us how the baptism 
was performed. It does not say that the burial was in water ; it 
simply says, " buried by baptism into death." Did you ever take 
into consideration the fact that three things are required in a burial? 
There must be an agent, an act, and an object. But here there are 
only two. Baptism is both the agent and the act. Baptism is the 
agent that buries the man, and at the same time it is the act of 
burial. What an absurdity it is. We are buried by baptism; that 
is, by the literal baptism into water! I say that there is no refer- 
ence to mode here. It is simply intended to express a state or con- 
dition, and we are in that state all the time. After we have been 
baptized, and as long as we are faithful to God, we are buried with 
him by baptism. 

{Time Expired.) 



226 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR, BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend claims, very seriously, that I can not understand him. 
I am certain that he does not understand himself. That is as clear 
as a sunbeam, if he came here, this morning, to prove that 
sprinkling or pouring is scriptural baptism. I most positively 
assert — and dare him to prove the contrary — that he has attempted 
but one single argument to prove either. Have you noticed that all 
the time he has been raising objections to immersion? He tried to 
show that the baptism of the Savior and the other baptisms of John 
were not immersions, but did not attempt to show you that these 
were either sprinkled or poured. He turned to the Case of the 
eunuch, and raised the same objection, and then ran almost through 
the entire New Testament, and told you, among other things, that 
Lydia, and Cornelius, and the jailer, and I do not know how many 
more, were baptized in their houses, and hence could not have 
been immersed. I defy him to prove that any one of these were bap- 
tized in a house. He knows no more where those persons were bap- 
tized than the youngest infant in town. The Bible does not tell 
him. 

I am not here, to-day, to affirm that immersion is baptism. That 
is not the question before us — not at all. The gentleman has come 
here to prove that sprinkling or pouring is baptism. Just think 
over his whole speech, and you will see that he has not even made 
an attempt to produce one single argument to prove that sprinkling 
is baptism. He acknowledged that he did not know what baptism 
was. He does not pretend to know, and does not want to know. 
It is an application of water in some way, but whether it is sprink- 
ling, or pouring, or immersion, he says, the book does not tell him. 
What does the man mean ? He came here to affirm that sprink- 
ling or pouring is scriptural baptism, and yet says the book does 
not tell him whether either is, or is not; still he is going to prove 
his proposition by Scripture. Did you ever know a man to so stul- 
tify himself in coming before an audience? He tells you the Scrip- 
tures do not determine the question, and still he is to determine it 
by Scripture. Now, if this is not a stultification of all knowledge 
and reason, I do not know what is. 

I do not intend to affirm that immersion is baptism ; but I in- 
tend to hold him strictly to this one work — that is, to prove that 
sprinkling or pouring is baptism. The sprinkling of the Jews, he 



MB. BROOKS'S SECOND BEPLY. 227 

savs, was a symbolic washing, and baptism is a symbolic washing. 
Well, if baptism is a symbolic washing, sprinkling or pouring, as 
he does it, is not a washing. He just rules himself out of the 
Bible; first it is a washing, then a symbolic washing, then in re- 
ality no washing at all. These people have too much sense to 
believe that pouring a little water on a man's head is a washing. 
As to its figurative character, he told you, to-day, that a figure 
must bear resemblance to the reality. Now, what resemblance is 
there in what he does to a washing ? 

Again: I utterly deny that it is a symbolic washing at all, and 
defy him to prove that it is. Put your hand on the Scripture that 
says it is a symbolic washing. It is an easy matter for him to 
stand up and tell you it is a symbolic washing, but he can not point 
his finger to the Scripture that thus affirms. 

He invited our attention to the use of baptizo, in Mark vii : 4, 5 : 
" And when they come from the market, except they wash, they 
eat not. And many other things there be which they have received 
to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of 
tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why wash not 
thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread 
with unwashen hands?" 

Suppose I translate a little now: "Except they sprinkle, they 
eat not." But my friend tells you that baptizo here means to wash, 
not to sprinkle. Well, what of it? Is he here to prove this? He 
tells you he is not here to say that it means sprinkle or pour ; yet 
that is just what his proposition requires him to do. This word 
baptizo, if it is generic, contains sprinkle and pour. Well, if it 
contains them, you can render it by them. And yet, I challenge 
these gentlemen to render it thus in any one instance. The word 
may mean either, if all are contained in the word; if it is a 
generic term, and contains them all, either word will render it. 
Now, then, "except they sprinkle or pour, they eat not." The 
washing is simply an effect of the act, as we showed you this morn- 
ing. I grant you washing may be one effect of dipping, as also to 
cool, as in the case of cooling the iron. By the same sophistry bap- 
tism is proven to mean "to cool." Again, dipping, as I showed 
you, may mean to heat in the same way, but the w T ater may be 
heated by applying fire under the pot. The gentleman sticks very 
close to that pot, and I expect he will continue to stand by it, espe- 
cially if he thinks there are any chickens in it. Our Methodist 
preachers have the name of being partial to chickens, I believe. 

By the way, he says he will not answer for Dr. Rice. Did he 
not make the same argument as that quoted from Dr. Rice ? I 
simply stepped over him to get at Dr. Rice, the author of it. 

Again: After coming from the market, these Pharisees, as after 
touching dead bodies, washed or bathed themselves. I suppose 
Benson — the great commentator of the gentleman's church — is good 



228 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

authority on this subject. He says, in his comment upon this 
passage : 

"And when they come from the market, except they wash — Greek 
baptizo — bathe themselves, as the word here ought probably to be 
rendered (see Lev. xv : 11), they eat not. Here the law instructed 
' that every one unclean was to rinse his hands, wash his clothes, 
and bathe himself in water.' " 

The custom then was to bathe themselves in water — never to 
sprinkle water with a view to washing. I wish to call my friend's 
attention to that fact. Water, without any thing else, was never 
sprinkled on this earth in the name of the great God, or of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, as a religious ordinance. Let him show one single in- 
stance where water itself, without mixture with blood or ashes, has 
been administered by Divine authority. Now, is it too much to ask 
of my friend, who proposes to prove that sprinkling or pouring is 
baptism, to show one instance in which, by authority of God, water 
has been sprinkled or poured upon any body? Surely not. 

My friend's own commentators are against him ; but he cares 
nothing for his commentators when they are opposed to him. In 
relation to pots, cups, and tables, we learn, from the book of Le- 
viticus, xi: 62, that "whatever vessel is unclean must be put into 
water until evening." Is it strange that, with such an express com- 
mand in their law, these Pharisees should even extend it to the 
couches upon which they reclined at table? Is it strange that they 
should include these ? Not at all. They did things stranger than 
this. Baptizo here, it is true, is rendered by " wash," but it is 
simply putting the effect for the act, and in no other sense. 

Mr. Fitch alluded to the marriage at Cana of Galilee, and says 
that the vessels there did not contain water enough to immerse in. 
I want to repeat what I said a moment ago : water was never 
by divine authority sprinkled upon any body without an admixture 
of something else, hence the w T ater in these vessels was not for the 
purpose of sprinkling or pouring the people. 

I now pass on to the consideration of that argument upon which 
my friend placed most stress this morning — the pouring out of the 
Spirit. 

Did you notice the remark the gentleman made just before his 
speech closed, in referring to the baptism in Romans vi ? The gentle- 
man is not disposed to concede that this is water baptism. I suppose 
he will make it spiritual baptism. Now, here, where there is a plain 
case of immersion, the gentleman makes it to mean spiritual baptism, 
and still he labored this morning to show us that the same baptism, 
on the day of Pentecost, was pouring. He said of the baptism of 
water, in Acts ii, that it was a symbolic baptism, and hence must 
bear a resemblance and a likeness to the reality — the baptism of the 
Spirit. But the baptism of the Spirit, he affirms, was by pouring, 
therefore he would conclude that the figurative baptism of water 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY. 229 

was by pouring. Let us try his logic by another passage. He 
says of Rom. vi : 3, that it is a spiritual baptism ; but this was a 
burial, hence the figurative baptism of water must resemble a burial, 
according to Mr. Fitch, but there is nothing in sprinkling or pouring 
that resembles either, therefore water baptism is not a sprinkling or 
pouring. But the idea that spiritual baptism is literal, and water 
baptism is figurative, is original with Mr. Fitch, and too absurd and 
ridiculous to deserve any notice at my hands. Verbs are sometimes 
used in close juxtaposition ; the one as preparatory to the other, and 
yet express entirely different acts. The following incident will 
clearly illustrate what I mean: During the war just past, a man 
stood on the northern bank of the Ohio River with a gun in his hand, 
shot, and killed a man on the Kentucky side. The shooting was nec- 
essarily preparatory to the killing ; but the shooting was not the kill- 
ing. Hundreds stood and shot at men on this side without killing 
them. The act of shooting was one thing, and the killing was another. 
Just so the act of pouring out the Spirit on Pentecost was one thing, 
and the baptism itself was another thing. The baptism took place in 
Jerusalem, where the apostles were. The pouring took place from 
heaven. The baptism was one of the ultimate results of the act of 
pouring out the Spirit, not the act itself. To show you the fallacy 
of this reasoning, I will submit a few similar syllogisms, if I may 
dignify his sophistry with such a term. 

Cornelius was baptized in the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit fell 
upon him ; therefore the falling of the Holy Spirit and baptism are 
the same act. 

The apostles were inspired by the Spirit, but the Spirit was poured 
out from heaven; therefore, the pouring out of the Spirit and in- 
spiration are one thing. 

But again : I baptized the people in the river, but the water in 
the river was poured out from heaven ; therefore, the pouring out of 
the water and baptism are one and the same act. 

Now, sir, that is the logic the gentleman tries to palm off upon you 
for sound reasoning. You go out and see the clouds pouring water 
into that stream, and you are baptized in the stream; are the two acts 
oue and the same ? 

The apostles were baptized in the Spirit, but the Spirit was poured 
from heaven ; therefore, the pouring and baptism are one and the 
same act ! It is just as conclusive to say that the pouring of water 
from the clouds and the baptism in the creek ar.e the same act, 
Iu both cases the pouring is preparatory to the act of baptizing, but 
is of itself an act entirely distinct from that. 

God sends the refreshing showers that fill the rivers and brooks 
and creeks of earth. He pours them down upon us; they fall on the 
earth, and the apostle makes use of the fact metaphorically to express 
the sending of the Spirit. When the Spirit came, they were baptized 
in the Spirit, not with the Spirit. 



230 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

But how does Mr. Fitch know that the classic use and Scripture 
use of the word ekcheo are the same ? I heard him say, in that speech, 
which he has made so often over this country (and indeed, it is a good 
speech. I do not believe he has a brother in his conference that can do 
better. But if what we have heard to-day is the best they can do, I sin- 
cerely sympathize with the whole fraternity) — he said, in that speech, 
that the classic and Scripture usage of baptizo were not the same. 
Having assumed this, without even an attempt to prove it, he framed 
the following dilemma for the Savior : "Christ was about to establish 
a new ordinance, and had either to coin a new word to express it, or to 
select a new meaning for the old word. He chose the latter." This 
was the gentleman's great argument. 

I want to turn that logic a little upon him. The word ekcheo, 
in the classics, means "to pour out." But the Savior was about to 
establish a new institution; for the first baptism of the Spirit that 
ever occurred, was on this occasion of Pentecost. Now, Christ had 
either to coin a new word to express it, or to attach a new mean- 
ing to an old one. He chose the latter; hence he did not mean 
pour when he said it. Words out of the Bible, and in the Bible, 
do not mean the same thing ! Certainly not ! The Son of God did 
not mean the same things we do, when he used the words man, ox, 
or dog, but something else, in the estimation of my friend. Ju>t 
so, Mr. Fitch, he said "pour" on this occasion; but then, he did 
not mean it, for words out of the Bible, and in the Bible, do not 
mean the same thing. Such licentious dealing with the word of 
God is absolutely outrageous. 

The Spirit, on this occasion, "filled all the house where they 
were sitting." They were immersed in the Spirit. But my friend 
will tell us it was not the Spirit, but the sound that filled the house, 
and which is the antecedent of it. Then what about tongues? 
Is tongues also the antecedent of it? Certainly not, for tongues is 
in the plural number. How unfortunate for my friend that the 
Apostle said, " This [which you now r see and hear], is that which 
was spoken of by the prophet Joel [when he said], I will pour out 
of my Spirit upon all flesh." They heard that Spirit, when it came 
with a sound like a rushing wind from heaven. The Spirit was 
poured out, and it sat upon them; it filled the house, and in it they 
were baptized. This was an immersion in every sense of the word. 

I desire to show you the inconsistency of my friend. Just get 
him at the mourner's bench, if you want to hear what he thinks 
of this baptism. It is now simply nothing but the sprinkling or 
pouring of a Little Spirit on a man's head or heart; but then, that 
the Spirit may come down without measure upon the mourners. 
Hear how he will pray for the help of the Spirit of God. He will 
cry to God "to send down a bountiful supply of the Holy Spirit," and 
as his voice rises louder and louder, he uses all the adjectives in the 
language to express the magnitude of the baptism desired. He wantj 



mr. brooks's second reply. 231 

"the whole town of Winchester to be filled with the Spirit of God;" 
or, as a Methodist brother prayed on one occasion, that it might 
come through the very roof of the house where they were sitting. 

He gave us one illustration, which I must not forget, for this 
involves the gist of his argument. He supposed a man to come 
in, that does not know any thing about baptism. Now, Christ. com- 
mands that man to be baptized, and the man does not know what 
baptized means. What, then, will he do? Why, he must see the 
thing, and then, go and do likewise. Mr. Fitch, did the Pente- 
costians see the baptism of the Spirit ? Why, sir, this is the grossest 
materialism. Suppose some man should not know what the word 
"anthropos" means. He takes that word, and says, what does it 
mean? He turns to Webster's lexicon, like my friend, instead of 
going to a Greek lexicon. He finds, now, that the w r ord is not in 
the English lexicon. What does he do? Why, sir, he will go to 
a Greek lexicon, and find that the word means man ; and now, 
forever, when he sees it, he knows what it means. Just so a sensi- 
ble man would act in reference to baptizo, and would reach a con- 
clusion just as infallible. 

But, he tells us he does not care any thing about the word as the 
classics used it; and yet, the Lord Jesus Christ used it as the 
classics used it. Christ does not say it is used in any other sense, 
nor is there one vestige of proof that it is. The classics used it 
before him in the sense of immerse, and the Fathers after him, in 
the same sense ; hence, if Christ used it in any other sense, he in- 
tended to deceive the people. 

The gentleman told us that the apostles had not time to immerse 
so many upon Pentecost. Well, the context does not say that they 
were all immersed that day ; but, by a cool calculation, such a thing 
w r as entirely practicable. The twelve apostles could have immersed 
every one of them that day. By his mourner's bench system, it 
would have been altogether impracticable. He could not have got- 
ten them through, even after days and weeks of mourner's bench ex- 
citement; but, fortunately for the truth, and the Pentecostian con- 
verts, there was no such human institution in existence. Thus, the 
gentleman is only transferring the difficulties of Methodist preachers 
to the apostles. 

Again : My friend tells us that the city of Jerusalem had no water 
supplies. Now, I am perfectly astonished, sometimes, at his posi- 
tions. Does he suppose we are absolutely so stupid as to have these 
barefaced and reckless assertions forced upon us, as though we 
were children in all these matters ? Does he not know that there 
never was a city on earth, the water supplies of which were greater 
than those of Jerusalem? To say nothing of the private cisterns 
and reservoirs that were common throughout this ancient city, the 
many public pools and water supplies were unparalleled in the his- 
tory of the ancient world ; indeed, it is questionable whether they 



232 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

have ever been equaled in any age of the world. Of the many 
pools, we note the dimensions of the following: The " Pool of Isaiah" 
was 130 feet by 130 feet. "Bethesda," 131 by 265 feet. Pool of 
"Lower Gihon," 260 by 600. Many of these have withstood the 
ravages of twenty centuries, and are there to this day. The gen- 
tleman surely was not ignorant of it. Dr. Barclay gives the di- 
mensions of all these pools, and his celebrated work has long been 
a standard authority in this country, as, also, in the old world. 
Yet, no water in Jerusalem to baptize these people ! 

{Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 233 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The gentleman says that I made no argument this morning, but 
that I attempted to make one upon the second of Acts. I suppose, 
then, he spent his allotted time in answering my attempt at an ar- 
gument. With reference to his logic and his syllogisms, I would 
say that, if he made any thing intelligible to you, you are a little 
keener of apprehension than I am, for I acknowledge that my ob- 
tuseness was such that I did not perceive the force of his remarks. 
I only understood this much : that he supposed that I would con- 
tend that those whom John baptized in the river were baptized by 
affusion, because the water in the river was poured out from heaven. 
That is his kind of logic, not mine. He contends that the Spirit was 
poured out from God in sufficient quantity to fill the house, and over- 
whelm those present, and, consequently, they were immersed. 

My dear friends, I think that when I read you the account of this 
transaction as it occurred, you will be able to see that he is absolutely 
under the necessity of perverting the Scriptures before he can offer 
one reasonable objection to the exposition which I gave. My expo- 
sition was the simple, natural explanation any unbiased mind would 
give: "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rush- 
ing, mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 
And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and 
it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost." 

You were told that the word it, in our translation, referred to the 
Spirit, and that the Spirit "filled the house." Does the word Spirit 
occur before the word it in the chapter ? Is it customary to make a 
pronoun refer to a noun that follows after it ? Did you ever see any 
such rule in grammar? I will read the passage again : "And sud- 
denly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing, mighty wind, 
and it filled all the house where they were sitting." There is not a 
man, woman, or child in this house, whether acquainted with gram- 
mar, or ignorant of it, who would not say that the word it refers to 
the "sound as of a rushing, mighty wind." Not one word has, so 
far, been said about the Spirit filling the house ; yet he filled the 
house with the Spirit, and immersed the people in the Spirit. "And 
there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat 
upon each of them." To what does that it refer? "To the sound 
from heaven, as of a rushing, mighty wind?" No, sir; there is not 
20 



234 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

a man or woman in this house who would say it referred to the "sound 
as of a rushing, mighty wind." It refers to the cloven tongues, like 
as of fire. There was the baptism of fire. There was no immersion 
of fire — none whatever. "And they were all filled with the Holy 
Ghost, and began to sp. j ak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them 
utterance." There is no it in the whole context which refers to the 
Holy Ghost. I appeal to your unbiased judgment, and ask who 
perverts the Scriptures in this case? 

When it says they were filled with the Holy Ghost, it does not 
mean that the corporeal man was filled with the Holy Ghost, but the 
spiritual man. It does seem to me that, if there was any immersion 
on this occasion, it was the Holy Spirit that was immersed, because 
it filled the spiritual man, and was within the apostles. And yet I 
am accused of perverting the Scriptures. This reception of the Holy 
Ghost was prophesied of by Joel, who used this language: "I will 
pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." 

The brother asks me if ekcheo does not mean "to pour out," in the 
classics. To be sure it does. Why, then, do I give it that mean- 
ing? Because the sacred writers use it in exactly the same sense as 
that in which the classic writers use it. But he asserts that the classic 
authors use the w r ord baptizo in the sense of "dip." Now, when the 
Savior took that word and applied it to an action which is otherwise 
expressed by the term "pour," and which can not possibly be dip- 
ping or plunging, I say that he did not use it in the sense in which 
the classic authors used it; and so your unbiased judgment will 
decide. 

Peter relieves the case from all necessity of doubt or controversy by 
the language which I have read, to which I will call your attention 
again. 

Peter says: " This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, 
when he says, 'I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh.' " Now, 
John and Christ both state that the very same thing was done with 
water that was to be done with the Holy Ghost. What was done 
with the Holy Spirit? It fell upon them; it was poured out upon 
them ; if these be figures of speech, they must accurately represent 
the real baptism. Then, if the same thing was done with water 
that was done with the Holy Spirit, the water was poured. If that 
is not argument, if that is not direct proof from the word of God, 
I would like for the brother to tell me what is argument, and what 
is proof. I tell you, sir, if he were charged with murder, and 
brought before any tribunal in this land, and such witnesses as John, 
Christ, and Peter, should bear such plain and unequivocal testimony 
to the fact that he had committed the alleged crime, as that by which 
I have proven baptism by pouring, then he would suffer the death- 
penalty of the law ; and if he knew that as direct evidence would be 
produced against him as that which I have produced in support of 
baptism by affusion, he would flee the country and evade a trial, if 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 235 

he desired to save his life. And yet he says that I have offered no 
argument, and that I have perverted the Scriptures; but he does not 
pervert the Scriptures when he tells you that " it," in the passage 
to which reference has been made, refers to the Spirit, when the 
Spirit has not yet been mentioned, and when he tells you that the 
Spirit filled the house, although the word of God says no such 
tiing! He, forsooth, expounds the Scriptures, according to the 
principles of logic, common sense, and sound reasoning, fair inter- 
pretation, and every thing of that kind, and I am a perverter, and 
a misrepresenter of facts. 

I intend to call your attention to the classics. I have a book at 
hand which contains a translation of every passage in the classic 
writers in which baptizo occurs, and I can show that the classic writ- 
ers did not use the word in the sense of " dip " only, I can prove 
from the classic authors that it had at least half a dozen meanings. 

When I originate an idea, and desire to convey that idea to some 
one, I must use some oral sign to represent it. Consequently that 
word represents but one idea, and has but one meaning ; and, as 
long as it is used to represent that idea, it retains that meaning, and 
never changes it. But the very moment I take the word and apply it 
to something else, or make it represent some other idea, its meaning 
is changed in so far as the second idea represented by it differs from 
the first. Let me illustrate: I will call that thing upon which the 
reporter is writing a '• stand ;" there is an oral sign. The word 
"stand" represents that article of furniture; just as long as I use 
that word to represent that thing, it retains that single meaning. 
But I take that word and apply it to this tiling upon which this 
book lies, and the word, when I apply it to this pulpit, differs just as 
much, in meaning, from the word when applied to that table, 
as this article differs from that article. Let him deny it if he dare. 
According to the laws of language, whenever I take that word and 
apply it to another thing, it differs in its third meaning from the 
two meanings already given, just to the extent that the third thing 
to which it is applied differs from the first two things which it rep- 
resents. 

Now, suppose the primary meaning of baptizo be to " dip." When 
Jesus Christ instituted the rite of baptism, as I have already told 
you, he had to do one of two things: coin a new word, or take an 
old word and give it a new meaning. He did take the old word 
baptizo, and give it a new meaning, as I have demonstrated; lie- 
cause if it originally meant dip, and nothing but dip, and he applied 
it to an action which can not possibly be performed in that manner, 
does it not follow that the meaning of the word is changed? I do 
not know what would prove it if that does not. 

Not only are these plain, demonstrable facts, but the classic au- 
thors themselves use the term in a variety of meanings; and if the 
gentleman doubts my word, I will look them up and show them to 



236 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

him in my next speech. He has no right to go back of all these 
secondary meanings, according to the soundest principles of reason- 
ing, and fix upon dip as the only idea contained in the word when 
applied to the initiatory rite of baptism. 

The Greek word " pastor" meant originally a keeper of sheep, 
and nothing else. The Scriptures apply it to a preacher or minister 
who has charge of a church or a body of believers. According to 
my brother's doctrine, he must contend that a preacher is not a 
pastor, unless he keeps sheep. If nothing is baptism but dipping, 
because "dip" is the primary meaning of bapto, of which baptizo 
is a derivative, then no man is a pastor unless he keeps sheep, be- 
cause the primary meaning of the word "pastor" is a "keeper of 
sheep." 

We will take another word, the Greek word stauros, which prima- 
rily meant a beam of wood ; afterward it meant an upright beam, with 
a transverse bar. These were its only meanings until employed by 
the Savior to represent Christian obligation and duty. Now, ac- 
cording to the logic of my friend, when the Savior told his disciples 
to take up the cross daily and bear it, he meant that they were to 
take up a log of wood and bear it, for this is the primary meaning 
of the term. The classics are higher authority than the Greek lexi- 
cons, because the lexicons only define words according to the usages 
of the classics. We might just as w 7 ell consult the classic authors 
who wrote before the Christian era to find a definition of daguerreo- 
type or telegraph, as to consult them to ascertain the correct mean- 
ing of baptism. 

They wrote centuries before the rite was instituted, and knew 
nothing about the meaning of the term when applied to the rite. 
The idea that dip is the only meaning of the term when employed 
to designate the Christian rite, is contrary to the laws that govern 
the development of language. No, my friends, the Greek lexicons 
can not define the term. Their authors knew nothing of the rite, 
and never used the word with reference to it. The sense of the 
word must be determined by the New Testament, by its grammati- 
cal and logical connections, and by all the circumstances that at- 
tended its use. Its meaning is here fixed beyond doubt, and we 
think that every unbiased mind will admit that baptism may be 
administered by pouring. If baptism can only be performed by 
immersion, then the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit made 
by Jesus Christ to the apostles has never been fulfilled so far as we 
have any information from the Holy Scriptures upon the subject. 
I read of but one immersion in the New Testament, and that is the 
immersion of the devil and ungodly men in the lake that burns 
with fire and brimstone. That is an immersion in fire. How could 
cloven tongues, like as of fire, resting upon the heads and shoulders 
of the apostles upon the day of Pentecost, be called an immersioD? 
If that is an immersion, it is performed by aifusion ; and if Mr. B. 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 237 

wants to pour water upon the candidates for Christian baptism until 
they are completely overwhelmed, and then call it immersion, I have 
no objection. The brother contends that I have made no argu- 
ment, and he makes the "it," that has reference to the sound that 
filled the house, refer to the Holy Spirit. Nothing is said about the 
Holy Spirit filling the house. John says, " I indeed baptize you 
with water, but ye shall be baptized not many days hence with the 
Holy Ghost" 

If baptizo designates a thing that is effected by pouring, then it 
is used in the new sense, and not in that which was given it by the 
classic Greek writers. What did his argument about shooting a 
man, and killing him, amount to? Was his wound the cause of his 
death, or was it the shooting? In this case, he says the pouring 
and immersing are two different things: the pouring is one thing, 
and the immersing is another thing. The pouring out of the Spirit 
upon the apostles is one thing ; and, this being proved, he under- 
takes to show that the immersion, or the baptism, is another thing. 
It* the pouring of the Spirit was an actual pouring out until it filled 
the hou.se, I want to know who immersed the apostles. We are in- 
formed that they were immersed after the Spirit was poured, and 
I should be very glad to "Know how it was done, and by whom. 

Did you notice his remarks about symbolical washing — how 
loosely-jointed they were? The other day, the brother said that 
Noah's .salvation was by the ark's floating upon the waters, and was 
a type of our baptism. Then there is no immersion, for Noah was 
not immersed; and, since I made that reply, he has not recurred 
to the subject. 

He asks if sprinkling a little water upon the face of the baptized 
is symbolical of a real washing. And that is what he calls reason- 
ing. No, sir, it is not the symbol of a real washing ; it is a symbol 
of the washing or baptism of the Spirit, the renewing of the heart, 
the cleansing and sanctifying of the soul. That is what it sym- 
bolizes, and that is what God designed it for. He did not design it 
to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; for the 
sacrament of the Lord's Supper does that. Is it not strange that 
Jesus Christ should appoint two sacraments which should represent 
the same thing? He assumes that Jesus Christ was actually buried 
in the waters of Jordan, when he was baptized, and contends that, 
because Paul says, " We are buried with him in baptism," that we 
are to be buried in the waters of some pool or baptistry. Paul 
teaches that when we are justified by faith we die to sin, and ought 
not to live any longer therein. We are separated from the world 
and sin, having died to them, and are united to Christ in the power 
of a new life. In order to set forth the entireness and completeness 
or' this change, he speaks of it as a death, burial, and resurrection. 
Baptism indicates this change, and we contend that pouring is just 
as well adapted to denoie this separation from the world, and conse- 



238 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

cration to God, as immersion. It is not the body that dies and is 
buried, that is crucified, but the old man — our depraved nature, and. 
it remains in this state of death. "We are buried," says the 
Apostle. 

If my opponent takes the position that the burial spoken of here 
is a literal burial in water, and the baptism a literal burial in water, 
then he must, according to a well-established principle of criticism, 
assume, also, that the crucifixion is literal, the planting literal, and 
the death literal. Will he take that position? Then the passage 
would necessarily read: " We are immersed by immersion into death. 
It simply says we are "buried by baptism." I am not arguing 
against immersion, as he represents me to be. I am showing that 
the New Testament establishes the fact that baptizo is a generic 
term. God's mode of baptizing is pouring ; but he has not said 
specifically that we must baptize in that way. "We take the position 
that when water is applied to a man in the name of the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Ghost, with a good intent and desire, he is scrip- 
turally baptized, w T hether that water is poured upon him, or sprinkled 
upon him, or whether he is dipped into the water. If any one asks 
what our preference is, I. will say, that Ave decidedly prefer affusion. 
Yet, the gentleman says, I have offered no proof, and have made 
no argument to sustain my position. I think this audience will be 
satisfied as to the manner in which I have sustained the proposition. 

What did his remarks about those pools amount to ? Did I say 
there were no pools there ? I said there were difficulties in the 
way of immersing in Jerusalem, which at that time rendered it 
extremely impracticable, if not impossible. I say also that the 
assertion which he made, in regard to his own abilities, is a physi- 
cal impossibility. He can not receive the confessions and baptize 
one man a minute all day to save his life, nor can any other man 
do it, who lives and walks the earth. If he undertakes to prove 
that these persons were immersed, he must show where they found the 
water into which they w r ere dipped. I did not say that the three 
thousand were not immersed, but I said the probabilities were very 
strongly against such a supposition. I did not say they were 
baptized by affusion, but I said there were insurmountable difficul- 
ties in the way of immersion, and all the probabilities in the case 
favored affusion. I say that Peter would have acted foolishly had 
he gone out and commenced dipping the people, calling that bap- 
tism, w^hen God had just baptized him with the Holy Spirit by 
pouring it upon him, and when he knew 7 that John and Jesus both 
had said the very same thing that John had done with water was to 
be done with the Holy Spirit — the very same thing. 

The brother called upou me to show, that if baptism could be 
performed by sprinkling, just one passage where baptizo might be 
rendered "sprinkle," and make sense. He only wanted just one. 
Well, I will give him just one, to satisfy him that the thing is 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 239 

possible: "John, indeed, baptized with water." "John, indeed, 
sprinkled with water." With reference to the baptism mentioned 
(Mark vii: 4), called washing, to which I called your atten- 
tion this morning, he made the following statements, viz.: He 
affirmed that when a vessel became defiled by a dead animal 
falling into it, it was purified by being immersed, and read a pas- 
sage from Leviticus to prove that this was of divine appointment. 
The baptisms spoken of in Mark were not of divine appointment, 
because Christ says that in observing these things the Jews were 
holding the traditions of the Elders. One of these traditions taught 
that when a man went to the market he became defiled by contact 
with uncleanness and impurity, and that he must be purified before 
he sat dawn to the table to eat. If such a person should touch a 
pot, or a couch, or bed, defilement was imparted to it, and it must 
be baptized, or washed also. 

The case to which the brother alluded in Leviticus has nothing 
to do with the matter at all. It only serves to fix the meaning of 
this term, and to show it is a generic term, and that it was so used, 
and so understood by Christ and the apostles, the writers of the 
!New Testament. He represented me, also, as saying that Lydia 
was baptized in her own house. Have I said that? I have not 
made such an assertion since the commencement of this debate. 

(Time Expired.) 



240 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

If the gentleman did not say that Lydia was baptized in her house, 
he did say others were baptized in their houses; for which he has no 
proof in this world. He said that the jailer and Cornelius were bap- 
tized in a house, and yet he does not know any such thing. 

My brother Wiles has been reading a little from that Almanac, and 
I want to present you with a probable estimate of statistics, as taken 
from it, Of Catholics there are one hundred and niuety-eight mill- 
ions ; of Protestants, one hundred millions ; total, two hundred and 
ninety-eight millions. My friend only made a mistake of two hun- 
dred and eighteen millions ; but this of course is a very small matter. 
Only forty-five millions of these can safely be counted for sprinkling, 
while two hundred and fifty-three millions are against it. The rate 
is six to one for immersion and against sprinkling, for, according to 
his almanac, the Greek Church alone numbers sixty-nine millions, 
and they all immerse ; add to these the Catholics, and one-third of all 
Protestants, and you have the correct estimate. 

I want to come now to the consideration of the sixth of Romans, 
and I am very happy to say, I shall make quick work of this passage : 
" Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that, like 
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, 
even so we also shall walk in newness of life." — Romans vi : 4. 

" Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from 
the dead." — Colossians ii : 12. 

The other day, when we were discussing the question of infant 
baptism, and when he quoted this last passage, to prove that baptism 
came in place of circumcision, he referred it to water baptism, and it 
was the only Scripture he quoted to prove his position. Day before 
yesterday, this passage meant water baptism ; yet, in his last speech, 
he quoted it as meaning spiritual baptism, and as having no water 
in it at all. Day before yesterday he was proving one thing, and 
quoted this passage in proof; to-day he is proving another thing, and 
he now sa} r s there is no water baptism in it. I would rather not 
have to expose these things, but I am compelled to do it. Besides, 
I want to show you that there is a great deal of good authority in 
reference to this question among the friends of Mr. Fitch. Among 
the ancients, Cyral, bishop of Jerusalem ; Basil the Great ; Chrysos- 
tom; Athanasius, Gregory, John of Damascus, and Tertullian, did 



mr. brooks's third reply. 241 

testify that Rom. vi : 4, refers to water baptism. Among modern 
writers, Dr. Clarke, Grotius, Burmanus, Luther, Hammond, Arch- 
bishop Leighton, StapferUs, Wall, Tillotson, Archbishop Seeker, 
Samuel Clarke, Wells, Doddridge, Whitfield, Wesley, Whitby, 
Benson, and a host of others too numerous to mention, unequivo- 
cally refer it to water baptism. Every commentator of note in the 
gentleman's Church, refers this passage to Christian baptism. But, 
my friend will tell you, there is no such reference in the passage. 

I call your attention to the rule Mr. Fitch laid down, that the 
figure must always bear resemblance to the reality. Now, in the 
passage before us, suppose we grant that it is spiritual baptism, still 
it is figurative. Then it bears at least a resemblance to a burial. Mr. 
Webster defines the word figurative "Representing something else; 
representing by resemblance." Now, does this spiritual baptism repre- 
sent something else by resemblance? I put the question to him, 
What resemblance has it to a burial, if it be sprinkling or pouring? 
Does he reply that it is spiritual baptism? still in this baptism we 
are buried figuratively. Did my friend ever see a spiritual baptism? 
Did he ever look at the thing? It must resemble the real burial. 
Now, what is the likeness? Did he ever see it, and did it look 
like a burial? Very clearly there must be some resemblance to a 
burial, and that resemblance is in hiding a man under the water, 
when you bury him from sight. The man is buried by baptism, 
and rises to walk in newness of life. My friend says it is through 
the operation of faith in God. Certainly! No man goes into the 
water or out of it without this faith. Remember, that when my friend 
wants to prove infant baptism, this is water baptism ; but to-day, there 
is no water in it when he wishes to deny that immersion is baptism. 

But again : He says this term baptizo is a generic term. Yet I 
have been calling on him all day to give a single instance in which 
it is used in a generic sense. The only instance he has given is, 
that "John baptized with water." Where did John baptize with 
water ? In the Jordan. Did John baptize in the Jordan with water? 
My friend will not make himself so ridiculous as to say that the 
Baptist went down into the Jordan to sprinkle the people. I boldly 
affirm that John did not baptize with water at all. I know that 
King James's revisers translate en in this passage by " with." Why 
did they not translate it "with" when they came to the passage, 
" John baptized in Jordan"? Because it would have been nonsense 
to say that John baptized with Jordan ; so in the other case they 
render it " with " without any authority under the heavens. 

Not an intelligent Pedobaptist, he says, believes in immersion as 
we do. " We believe immersion is baptism," he says, " because it 
is immersion." These are his words. But they, because it is the 
application of water to a person. Now this is truly wonderful. I 
believe this gentleman seated here is Mr. Fitch, because he is Mr. 
Fitch. I wonder if I am correct. 
21 



242 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Now, I believe immersion is baptism, because it is baptism. My 
friend has not attempted yet to prove that any thing else is baptism. 
He has been trying to prove that immersion is not, and has gone 
back to the same old argument. He can not point to any other, and 
he makes his whole fight right there, that immersion is not baptism. 
But I am not affirming that immersion is baptism at all. 

Again : He seems not to have known that the Jordan ran through 
the wilderness of Judea. Well, I can not inform my friend upon 
all matters! The region that lies to the east of Jerusalem, and 
reaches out to the Jordan, was then commonly called the wilderness, 
and to this day it is so called. He says I made a false criticism in 
my remarks in reference to eis, as connected with the baptism of 
Christ. I told him that he rendered the preposition eis by at, upon 
the Jordan, and that where Philip baptized the eunuch he rendered 
it by to, and he told you, with a great deal of spirit, that the reason 
of it was that there were two prepositions. If he would read his 
Greek Testament a little more, he would not make these egregious 
mistakes. The preposition in Mark i: 9, is eis, not en, as my friend 
asserts. Eis I It is the same preposition used to take Philip and the 
eunuch down into the water. He renders it at in one case, and 
to in the other, but gives us no authority for either. 

He calls our attention to the baptism in the cloud and in the sea, 
and tells us the clouds poured out water upon the Israelites. (Ex- 
odus xiv.) 

The night in which they passed over — for they passed through 
the Ked Sea in the night — the cloud, which went before the Israelites, 
came back and got behind, and between them and the Egyptians, 
turned its light and fiery side over the Israelites, and its dark and 
cloudy side over the Egyptians. It rained in torrents upon the 
Egyptians; and amid storm, and tempest, and hail, and lightning, 
Pharaoh was overthrown, while the fiery side threw its glorious light 
over the pathway of the Israelites. They were not sprinkled even 
by rain. The rain was poured out upon the Egyptians, while the 
light of the cloud threw itself over Israel. They sometimes have it 
rain falling from the clouds, and sometimes it is the spray falling 
from the walls of ice, I suppose. They were baptized in the cloud and 
hi the sea — immersed, absolutely and literally immersed — -just as 
much as if they had gone down into the water. 

He says, with regard to Romans vi, that I make baptism here 
both the agent and the act. I do not know that I ought to detain 
you to follow out criticisms like that. The agent is the baptist, and 
a burial in water is the act which is done. Mr. Fitch certainly 
knows that they were buried in baptism. Then somebody must 
have buried them. 

He wanted to know if the Holy Spirit was mentioned in the sec- 
ond of Acts. He said that the Spirit had not been mentioned, and 
that, therefore, the pronoun it could not possibly stand for Spirit. 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY. 243 

Spirit could not be the antecedent of it, for the Spirit had not been 
mentioned. In the 16th and 1 7th verses we read : " This is that which 
was spoken by the prophet Joel : and it shall come to pass in the 
last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and 
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men 
shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." 

He does not read his book ; that is the trouble. In the very 
chapter he has quoted from, the Spirit is mentioned, and Luke says, 
" it filled all the house." It sat upon each of them ; they saw it when 
it sat on them ; it fell from heaven like the rushing of a mighty 
wind, and it filled the house, and they were baptized in the Spirit. 
He says that dipping is not the classical use of baptizo, and that 
the word is generic, and yet all day he has had opportunity to 
demonstrate that it means sprinkle or pour, and has not attempted 
to give you one single instance from the classics, or adverted to a 
single passage in the Bible, where it may be rendered sprinkle or pour. 
Will he put his hand on the passage and say where it is thus used ? 

Now, let me tell you a little secret, that perhaps my friend does 
not know. The Greek lexicon of Liddell and Scott, now the stand- 
ard work on this continent, in one of its early editions, gave sprinkle 
as one of the definitions of baptizo ; but the cry against it from all 
directions was so great, that they were compelled to cast it out. It 
would have ruined their lexicon, good and great as it is. No, my 
friend can not give us a lexicon that gives sprinkle, or pour, as a 
definition of this word. He knows he can not do it, and will not 
even make the attempt. 

I wish to direct your attention for a moment to his last speech. 
Pie says a word must have its current use until it is applied to a 
new thing. He means by this to teach us that baptizo had its cur- 
rent use until Christ came, and then the meaning of the word was 
changed. There is not one syllable of truth in this whole statement. 
The act expressed by baptizo was no new thing in the time of 
Christ. Every time a person or thing had been plunged into a 
fluid or penetrable substance, from the "beginning of the Greek lan- 
guage till then, a baptism had taken place. These people knew what 
baptizo meant as well as we know what dip means. The word was 
used in every-day life, and by all classes; and when the Savior com- 
manded them to be baptized, they understood it as perfectly as you 
would understand me, were I to command you this evening to be 
immersed. As to the words pastor, cross, etc., they, like baptizo, 
have a literal and figurative use; the latter the gentleman has mis- 
taken for a new meaning. The gentleman here begs the whole ques- 
tion in debate. He has not given us any proof that it means sprinkle 
or pour. Now I appeal to all of you, yea, to his own brethren, to 
tell me if he has attempted to make one argument, besides that upon 
the second of Acts, during the whole discussion, to prove that sprink- 
ling or pouring is baptism. He has made many efforts to show that 



244 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

immersion is not baptism, but it is his business to prove that sprink- 
ling or pouring is baptism. He has said all the time that immer- 
sion is baptism ; yet he has kept me replying to his objections to 
immersion, and has made but one semblance of an attempt to prove 
that either sprinkling or pouring is baptism. 

Again : If the usage of the word in the Greek language can not 
define it, how does he know what this word means? If the Greek 
lexicons do not show, how do you know what it means? If 
he were a Frenchman, how would he find out what dip means ? 
Why, he would go to an English lexicon. Well, how is he to 
know the meaning of the word baptizo t Let him take up a Greek 
lexicon he has there, and turn over to the word baptizo, and see what 
it means. Did you ever read one of them that defined it sprinkle 
or pour? How is he to ascertain the meaning, except from the 
lexicons? Has he attempted in his speech to show? And then, if 
he will reject the usage of the classics and all the lexicons on earth, 
and start out on his own responsibility, and say that the word means 
just what he wishes it to mean, how is he to succeed before an 
honest people in his investigation of the word of God ? Has he 
attempted to show you, in one case, that baptizo means to sprinkle or 
pour? When he goes into the Bible, he does not attempt to prove 
what his proposition affirms. He has been trying all day to get 
me on the affirmative, to affirm that immersion is baptism. He 
throws out the classics, makes not one single argument to show 
that sprinkling is baptism, and only one effort to prove that pour- 
ing is baptism, and then appeals to this intelligent audience for 
indorsement. Well, may the Lord have mercy on this audience, if 
they are to receive his one pitiful argument, which has been re- 
futed again and again, as proof of his proposition. I appeal to you, 
my fellow-citizens, to know if these are not facts to which you have 
listened this day. I want to repeat the fact, that it devolved upon 
him to prove that sprinkling or pouring — not immersion — is bap- 
tism, and yet he has made but one single argument in demonstra- 
tion of this proposition. In reply to my criticism upon Mark vii, 
in which I showed that the Pharisees had gone so far in carrying 
out their traditions, as to go beyond authority, and baptize their 
couches and other things, he said that I meant to intimate that 
this was by Divine authority. I did no such thing. The Pharisees 
themselves carried it to that extreme, and that, too, without au- 
thority from the law of Moses. More than that, Campbell, in his 
debate with Rice, which is before us, tells us of a class of people in 
Abyssinia who are, to this day, in the habit of immersing themselves, 
just as the Pharisees are said to have done, after reluming from 
market. 

Now, my dear friends, we have made the argument, and, as yet, 
my friend, in this investigation, has not made one argument in favor 
of that which he affirms. I wish to say, in conclusion, that his 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY. 245 

mission here to-day was to prove that sprinkling or pouring is scrip- 
tural baptism. I did not come here to affirm that immersion was 
baptism. He agreed to affirm that sprinkling or pouring is scrip- 
tural baptism. Let me call your attention to the fact again, for I 
can not impress it too earnestly. He has gone to the river of 
Jordan, to the baptism of the Savior, and tried to show you that 
baptism is not immersion. He has gone to Rome, to show that 
those buried in baptism were not immersed. He has directed our 
attention to Cornelius, and Lydia, and a great many others, who, 
he says, were not immersed ; but has he shown you one person 
who was sprinkled or poured? His only attempt was the argument 
he built upon the outpouring of the Spirit upon Pentecost, and we 
have shown you that this must have been an immersion in the 
Spirit of God. 

The gentleman has refused to tell us what Christian baptism is. 
He will not define himself; it may mean sprinkle, pour, immerse, 
wash, or any thing else. Does he take the same position with re- 
gard to the baptism of the Spirit? He says that Romans vi, is a 
spiritual baptism, but that was a burial, and hence, must have been 
an immersion ; and yet, he has labored hard to prove that the baptism 
of the Spirit, on Pentecost, was by pouring. Does the gentleman 
take the position, then, that the baptism of the Spirit is sometimes 
by sprinkling, sometimes by pouring, and sometimes by immersion? 
Does the gentleman take either, or all of these positions? If the 
pouring of Pentecost is the divine mode of baptism, then why does 
he sprinkle or immerse? Will he define himself here? 

{Time Expired.) 



246 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My worthy opponent tells you I have not proved any thing, and 
then he tells you that I have not attempted to prove any thing. 
"What have I been doing, then, during the two hours which I have 
occupied to-day? I am sorry, my good friends, that he said what he 
did this afternoon. He told you, in his speech before the last, 
that "it," in the second chapter of Acts, referred to the Holy Spirit, 
and that the Spirit filled the house. I read to you the account of 
this transaction, and showed clearly that such was not the case, and 
he followed me immediately, and repeated his statements. I will read 
a portion of the first chapter of Acts, beginning at the fifteenth 
verse: "And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the dis- 
ciples, and said, (the number of names together were about one 
hundred and twenty), Men and brethren, this scripture must needs 
have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, 
spake concerning Judas, winch was guide to them that took Jesus." 
The "it" in controversy occurs in the second verse of the second 
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, and he tells us that the word 
refers to the Holy Ghost, which is not found nearer than the six- 
teenth verse of the preceding chapter, and has no connection with 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit. All this indicates how hard pressed 
the brother is. And this morning, when he represented me as 
translating the w T ord en "at," when it is said that John baptized in 
Jordan, and the same word again "to," when Philip baptized the 
eunuch, I told you that the word used, when it says John baptized 
in Jordan, is en, and the word used when the baptism of the eunuch 
is recorded, is els. I will read, from the second chapter, the record 
of Jesus's baptism: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
straightway out of the water; and lo, the heavens were opened 
unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and 
lighting upon him." 

He says I do not read the Bible. My friend, however, has read 
his Bible, and he refers to the preposition eis in connection with 
the baptism of Jesus, and the word is not there. The particle eis 
is not in the original, and the English preposition "in" is not 
in the translation of the passage to which I have called your at- 
tention. The trouble is, that I have read the Bible a little too 
closely for him to pervert the Scriptures and escape detection. I 
have also read the works of his Church a little too carefully. He 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 247 

takes occasion to instruct me, doubtless because he feels there is 
need of instruction somewhere. I have not a^ked him for instruc- 
tion, nor have I felt the need of it as yet. I desire to inform him 
that he has not told me a new thing since this debate commenced. 
He has not mentioned a single fact of which I was not already- 
aware. I do not expect him to tell me any thing. He had better 
impart his instruction to some one else, for I feel entirely compe- 
tent to perform the task which I have undertaken. 

His great plea is that I have made but one argument. I have 
made one argument, and it is a strong one, and I defy him to over- 
throw or to refute it. Has he done it? No, sir, he has not. And 
this argument which I made was not founded upon the classical 
writers, nor the Greek lexicons, but upon the inspired word of God. 
Now I will read to you the account of the transaction on the day 
of Pentecost from Anderson's translation: "And suddenly there 
came from heaven a sound as of a rushing, violent wind, and it 
filled the whole house in which they w T ere sitting. And there ap- 
peared to them tongues like fire, which distributed themselves, and 
sat one on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy 
Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave 
them utterance." 

I really like the translation. It reads: "That they distributed 
themselves, and sat one upon each of them." Then, if they were 
distributed, they were separated. When things are distributed, they 
can not fill any thing, therefore, the tongues of fire did not fill the 
house, because, unless the apostles filled the entire capacity of the 
house, the tongues of fire which sat upon each of them did not fill 
the entire house, therefore it could not be an immersion in fire. Mr. 
Anderson could not differ with King James 's translation much here ; 
and further, it is said that they spoke with other tongues, as the 
Spirit gave them utterance. I will read what is said in this trans- 
lation in regard to this: "And they were all in amazement and 
doubt, and said one to another, What can this mean? But others, 
deriding, said, They are full of new wine." 

Sometimes, when persons are converted at the mourner's bench, 
they seem to be drunk, just as the outsiders in this case thought 
those under the influence of the Spirit were drunk. Those who 
deny the direct and immediate influence of the Holy Spirit upon 
the human heart in the conversion and sanctification of the human 
soul think that we are the prophets of Baal, and half crazy or drunk. 
We are in good company when we are thought to be drunk, for the 
apostles themselves were thought to be drunk. But the reply made 
by Peter on this occasion, w 7 as as follows : " For these are not 
drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. 
But this is that which is spoken by the prophet Joel : And it shall 
come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my 
Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall 



248 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

prophesy, and your young men "Shall see visions, and your old men 
shall dream dreams." 

Now, if the promise had been : "John, indeed, immersed in water, 
but ye shall be immersed, not many days hence, in the Holy Ghost," 
why was it not a case of immersion ? In the name of common sense, 
why was this an affusion, and not an immersion ? Can affusion be 
immersion? You may pour the element upon the man until he is 
completely enveloped with it — and buried in it, if you please — but 
it is affusion still ; the man is not dipped. 

He wants to know, again, if pouring could represent a burial. Does 
my brother know that, when Paul wrote this language, the Komans 
did not bury their dead in the ground? Dead bodies, at that time, 
were burned, and the ashes were inurned. In ancient authors the 
ashes of the dead are frequently spoken of. Some of the tribes of 
Indians out in our western wilcls put the bodies of the dead upon scaf- 
folds, and* allow them to remain there and molder away, in the open 
air, until they become dust. When a baptism is said to represent a 
burial, how do you understand it ? Is there any resemblance between 
dipping a man into water and burning a corpse to ashes, and inurning 
the ashes? Is there any resemblance between putting a dead body 
upon a platform, and allowing it to molder back to dust, and dip- 
ping a man into water? Yet this is a true representation of the mat- 
ter. The fact is, that pouring comes nearer representing a burial, ac- 
cording to the custom of this country, than immersion does. How 
do these brethren immerse a man ? They take hold of him, and, by 
physical force, put him into the water, out of sight. Did you ever 
see a man buried in that way ? Do you not first excavate a place 
in the earth, then deposit the coffin carefully in it, and pour the earth 
in upon it? There is really more resemblance, then, between the 
pouring of water and burial than between immersion and burial; for 
we pour the earth in upon the coffin, and do not plunge the coffin 
into it until out of sight. And the figure holds good in planting, 
also; for do we not dig up the earth, set the tree in, and pour the 
earth about its roots? We are really as much planted by pouring 
as by immersion. Neither can immersion be made to represent a 
crucifixion any more than pouring. In Galatians we read the follow- 
ing language: " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
him from the dead." We are dead before we are buried with him 
in baptism; but the Apostle says, "Ye are risen with him, through 
the faith of the operation of God." Our resurrection being through 
faith, is spiritual; then the death and burial must be spiritual, and 
not literal. If Mr. B. makes the burial literal — that is, immersion — 
then the death ought to be literal, and the immersed person ought 
to be raised from his watery grave, not by the hands of the minister, 
but "through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
(that is, Christ) from the dead." How did God raise Jesus Christ from 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 249 

the dead ? The Apostle declares that it was by or through the Eternal 
Spirit. So, by faith in the operation of this Spirit, he raises us from 
the death of sin to Jive to God. Is it not evident that the baptism 
here spoken of is spiritual? But Mr. B. makes it a literal immer- 
sion in water. 

The brother has been complimenting me for several days. I do 
not understand the aim of his eulogies, unless it be to make the im- 
pression that I am a great man, and thereby add to his own glory 
if he is victorious in this contest, or detract from the confusion and 
shame of his defeat, if he loses the day. But he has suddenly changed 
his tactics, and, this evening, when he is hard pressed by my argu- 
ments, he says he do n't know whether I am educated or not. One 
thing, however, he is certain of, and it is, that I do not read my Bible. 
The other day he accused me of reading my "Discipline" more than 
my Bible. Now, this is something he knows nothing about. I 
presume I read the Bible as frequently as he does, and, when I do 
read, I read for the purpose of understanding what I read. The 
brother asks how the apostles knew what to do, when Christ com- 
manded them to baptize, if they were not allowed to go to the clas- 
sics and Greek lexicons to ascertain what the word meant. God 
taught them how to administer the rite when he baptized them with 
the Holy Spirit. They needed no farther instruction upon this sub- 
ject than what he gave them in this way. 

I desire, now, to show you, by reference to the classics, that bap- 
tizo does not always mean " to dip." We read from Achilles Tatius : 
"The blood boiling up, through great force, overflows the veins, and, 
flowing round the head within, baptizes the breathing (passage) of the 
intellect." No dipping here. We read from Aristotle: "Which, when 
it is ebb tide, are not baptized ; but, when it is full tide, are flooded." 
In this case, the water overflowed the land, but there is no dipping. 
The next extract is taken from Strabo : " Alexander, falling upon 
the stormy season, and trusting, commonly, to fortune, pressed on be- 
fore the flood went out, and, through the entire day, the army marched 
baptized to the waist." When a man wades into the water to his 
breast, do our immersionist friends call that a baptism ? Hippocra- 
tes, an ancient physician, giving directions for the management of a 
plaster, says: "Then, dipping into oil — rose or Egyptian — apply it 
through the day, and, as soon as it stings, take it away, and baptize 
(moisten) it again with woman's milk." I could read, if necessary, 
scores of passages, to prove that, according to classic usages, baptizo 
does not always mean "dip." These are sufficient. I propose, now; 
to read an extract from one of the standard writers of the English 
language, to show that even an immersion can be performed with- 
out "a putting in" or dipping. The passage which I shall read can 
be found in the works of Sir Walter Scott — and I presume that the 
brother will never excel him in literary attainments. Here is the 
passage : " The boat received the shower of brine which the animal 



250 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

spouted aloft, and the adventurous Triptolemus had a full share of 
the immersion." 

This was an immersion by sprinkling. You will see, from the 
passages which I have read, that the difficulties in my way, or in the 
way of Pedobaptists, are not so great after all. His exclusive idea 
is a shadow, which flees at the approach of the light which comes 
from these sources. But my friend is so wrapped up in his theory, 
so bound down to it. and it exercises such a tyranny over him, that 
it will not allow him to open his heart and mind to receive the light 
which would be poured into them. 

I assert, then, that I have proven from the word of God, by re- 
ferring to the transaction recorded in the second chapter of Acts, 
which occurred on the day of Pentecost, that, when we pour or 
sprinkle the water upon a subject, we baptize in a scriptural sense. 
For, if "pouring" is not a scriptural meaning of the word baptizo, 
then the Holy Scriptures are liable to mislead. Peter emphatically 
gives it as a meaning of baptizo. If pouring is not a scriptural 
meaning of the word, when it is used to designate the specific act 
by which those who were converted to Jesus Christ on the day of 
Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius were baptized by the Holy 
Ghost, then what is the scriptural meaning of the term? If it de- 
notes the specific act of spiritual baptism, why may it not designate 
the specific action of water baptism? If the specific term "pour" 
is contained in the generic term baptizo, why do we not baptize 
when we apply the element water in this way? The brother has 
talked a great deal about immersion ; but has he, or can he, ever 
produce one such clear and unmistakable case of immersion from 
the whole Bible, as the case of pouring which we have produced? 
If he will, I will give up my charitable, liberal creed, and accept his 
exclusive idea. 

But, my friends, this is the only charitable and catholic position 
which the Church can take. Here is where we stand upon a broad 
platform — a catholic basis. When a man comes to me, and asks 
for baptism, I ask: "How do you want to receive it, sir?" "I 
want to be dipped, because I read that Philip and the eunuch ' went 
down into the water, and came up out of the w T ater.'" " Very well, 
sir," I say, "you have a right to the free exercise of conscience and 
judgment in this matter; receive it in your own way." Another 
man comes, and says: "I want to be baptized by sprinkling." 
"Why do you wish to receive it in that way ? " The reply is: " Be- 
cause I read in the prophets, that ' he shall sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean.'" Then I would say: "If this is 
your understanding, if this is your conscientious conviction of what 
the Scriptures teach, receive it in your own way." Another wishes 
to be baptized by pouring, and gives, as his reason for it, that the 
baptism of the Holy Spirit was administered in this way ; and I also 
comply with this man's wishes. I would not interfere with or bind 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 251 

any man's conscience and judgment, and say that he shall not decide 
for himself in this matter. Our immersionist friends will not allow 
this liberty, although they profess so loudly to be in favor of the 
free exercise of private judgment. 

These are some of the arguments we have to offer in favor of the 
administration of baptism by affusion. The Holy Spirit baptized in 
this way, and teaches the same mode by the mouth of inspired men ; 
and, whenever a man opposes the administration of baptism by af- 
fusion, he opposes God's mode of administering it. No man has 
ever had the temerity to undertake to explain the word " ekcheo" to 
mean any thing else in this connection. The new translation of my 
brother's Church was gotten up for the express purpose of imposing 
upon the world the dogma of exclusive immersion. Other Christian 
denominations are willing to take the old Bible, which time has 
made sacred, and use familiar, in which baptizo retains its generic 
sense. Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians — all are willing 
to abide by King James's translation ; but this would not do for our 
friends, they must have a new and more accurate translation. Well, 
when they get through changing it, we may accept it. But we take 
the new translation, and examine the language where Peter refers 
to what they have rendered " immerse you in the Holy Spirit," 
under the term " pour," and we find that they have translated 
ekcheo "pour," just as it is in King James. That is a virtual ac- 
knowledgment that we are right — that the baptism of the Holy 
Spirit was not an immersion. They abandon the specific meaning 
which they contend can be carried all through the New Testament 
Scriptures, and all through the classics, with an unvarying same- 
ness. Whenever they allow that the specific term ekcheo, which im- 
plies a different action from that of baptizo, may stand for, and 
designate it, they abandon their unchangeable meaning " dip," and 
whenever they assert that the "washing of regeneratfon," spoken of 
by Paul, means baptism, they give up their specific idea, and admit 
that baptizo is a generic term. But my friend will say that wash- 
ing is an effect of baptism. Who can tell what is the effect of 
baptism ? 

The brother calls upon me to state when I ever saw a spiritual 
baptism, and what it was. I*call upon him to state what is the real 
effect of water baptism. What spiritual effect did God design it to 
have? All this is a mere subterfuge, behind which he hopes to 
escape unhurt by the bolts of truth which are being hurled at him. 
Is washing an effect of baptism ? In what sense is a man washed, 
when he is taken into the water with his clothes on, dipped, and then 
brought out? Is he washed literally? No man will contend that he 
is. If there is any physical impurity or defilement about him, when 
he goes into the water, he is just as much defiled when he comes out 
as when he goes in. Literal washing, then, is not the effect of bap- 
tism. What kind of washing is it, then? Washing is not the effect 



252 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of baptism at all ; but baptism is a symbolical washing, which may 
be done by pouring. It will not do to say that the Apostle here 
means the effect of baptism. If he means any thing connected 
with baptism, he means baptism itself. And I suppose he uses the 
generic term to represent a specific action. If my good brother will 
show that baptizo is a univocal word, both in classical and religious 
literature, then he may talk to me about yielding the question. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH REPLY. 253 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH REPLY, ON THE FOURTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My friend says I have not told him one single new thing since 
this debate commenced. I see I have told him one new thing, at 
least, namely, that eis was used in connection with the Savior's bap- 
tism. This he will find in Mark i: 9: "And it came to pass in 
those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was bap- 
tized of John " — eis ton Iordaneen — "in the Jordan." The word eis 
is" there, Mr. Fitch. I ask my friend to look before he condemns 
us so severely. When I make a positive assertion, he may rely 
upon it that I am right. It is Mr. Fitch, and not me, who does 
not read his book aright. My friend is very confident, sometimes, 
of these things, but never fails to be wrong, especially if he appeals 
to the Greek Scriptures. He had better confine himself to plain 
English. 

I want to call my friend's attention to the fact that, on Pentecost, 
there were no tongues of fire, no baptism of fire, at all. He has 
been quoting it that way all day — "tongues of fire." He should 
have said, "tongues like as of fire." There was no baptism of fire 
there. When John was talking to those Jews — he had before him 
the good and bad, friends as well as foes, the enemies of truth, as 
also its friends — he pointed to all of them, and said, "You shall be 
baptized with the Holy Spirit and with fire." When Christ spoke to 
the apostles only, at Jerusalem, he said, "John indeed baptized 
in water, but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Ghost not many 
days hence." He does not say one word about the baptism of fire, 
for the wicked are not before him. Seldom is it that my friend 
reads his book aright; else, he would not see so many things that 
are not in it. 

He says they did not bury their dead in the days of Christ, 
but burned them. Yet, we. know that Christ was in the tomb of 
Joseph three days, and the corpses came out of their graves, and 
walked the streets of Jerusalem. Sometimes, it is true — [Mr. 
Fitch, rising, said, "I said the Romans burned their dead." Mr. 
Brooks — Wait a moment, and I will tell that too.] Sometimes, it 
is true, the Romans burned their dead; but this was not the uni- 
versal rule, and when they did, they buried their ashes. 

Again: He refers to the second of Colossians, and wants to know 
how a man can be raised in immersion, by faith in the operation of 
God. Simply by going down into the water, and coming up through 



254 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

faith. How did he raise his little infants, through faith, when he 
applied the passage to them the other day? He told us this was 
water baptism then, when he was trying to prove infant baptism. 
Did you remark that he did not notice that fact in his last speech, 
although I called his attention to the inconsistency? It is all spirit- 
ual baptism to-day. I will read the passage, under the supposition 
that it is water baptism; and that it is, we have no less authority 
than Mr. Fitch : "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are 
risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath 
raised him from the dead." 

Now you are buried with him in baptism, wherein (in baptism) 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God. 
This is the universal law r that governs baptism. A man goes down 
into the water, and he is buried with his Lord in baptism, and is rai.-ed 
out of the water, all of which is done in the name of Christ. 
Strange that my friend can not see this! that he can not see how a 
man can go down into the water, and be raised, by the hands of 
man, through faith in God! In conversion, Christ uses man as an 
instrument, God works through human instrumentalities in all 
these things. 

My friend, at this late period in the discussion, has given us 
three passages from the classics. I am not sure that the word 
baptizo is the word used in each passage ; it may be bapto in some 
of them. I have not time now to examine, of course, but he only 
claims that the word in these passages does not necessarily mean 
immerse. He does not claim that the word, in either case, could 
be rendered by either sprinkle or pour. Now, I most positively 
affirm that, in each case, it could be translated by immerse, or some 
of its cognates, and in neither instance by sprinkle or pour. This 
effort, then, is a full confession that he is unable to find a passage in 
which the word means either sprinkle or pour ; it can not be done. 
We have been calling on him to read a passage proving the word 
to mean sprinkle or pour. Yet every single one of them meant dip, 
and when the debate comes out, you will see it. I do not ask him 
simply to read passages that coufd not be rendered by dip, but to 
read a single passage from the classics, and translate baptize- by 
sprinkle or pour. The day is gone, and he has not done it. But 
he quoted Sir Walter Scott, and failed to prove sprinkling or pour- 
ing even by him. Now, the gentleman must be hard pressed, in- 
deed, to refuse to have any thing to do with the classics all day, and 
now, at the close of the discussion, to go to them, only to find them 
against him in every passage he quoted, and then, in desperation, 
to appeal to Scott. This is the first time we have ever known a 
Pedobaptist to affirm his position on this subject. I have never be- 
fore heard a discussion where they affirmed their practice, and I am 
free to confess that I had no idea of the infinite weakness of the 
thing when you put them on affirmative ground. He has not made 



MR. BRGOKS's FOURTH REPLY. 255 

one single effort to prove that sprinkling is scriptural baptism or 
any other baptism. The whole argument has been made upon the 
second of Acts, to prove that pouring is baptism, and not one par- 
ticle of authority is produced to prove that sprinkling is baptism. 
I boldly and defiantly tell him he can not do it. I appeal to you 
who have been here and have listened to him to-day. Not one sin- 
gle passage has he shown to prove that sprinkling is baptism, and he 
has made but one effort only to prove that pouring is baptism. 

In the proposition this morning, he affirmed that pouring or 
sprinkling water upon persons, is scriptural baptism. When Mr. 
Rice was on the negative, when any of them were on the negative 
heretofore, they could make a great many sophistical arguments. To- 
day he has been on the affirmative, and the gentleman has truly 
failed. This, he may say, is simply my opinion ; but the thing is this 
time a question of knowledge and not of opinion. He has attempted 
but one argument. It has been an absolute failure, even in the at- 
tempt to argue the question ; for he has made but one effort, in this 
direction, that in any way touched the case. All day he has been 
hammering away on this spiritual baptism. This is the best he can 
do. The failure is infinitely worse than I had any idea it would be. 

He says that brother Anderson has made a translation, and seems 
disposed to condemn him for this. "Well, so has brother Wesley 
made one. Shall we condemn him ? My friend is anxious to court 
the good-will of our Baptist brethren. Now, I have nothing to say 
against the Baptists. I think they are in the kingdom, but he is not. 
He seems to have forgotten that they are now engaged in making a 
revision of the Bible. But this new version of the New Testament, 
will be no more authoritative with him than brother Anderson's. 

I have answered every thing the gentleman has said. I want, 
then, to invite your attention to the progress of this argument to-day. 
The gentleman came here to affirm that sprinkling and pouring is 
Christian or scriptural baptism ; that was the question. He has 
made no effort to maintain his proposition. I have shown you, first, 
that no Greek ever used, in his native tongue, this word baptizo, 
either in the sense of sprinkle or pour. Now, the gentleman has not 
attempted to give you one single example of such usage; he tried to 
give you some examples in which it did not mean immersion, but in 
this he failed. I most positively affirmed that not a single Greek lex- 
icon defines the word in the sense of sprinkle or pour, and he has 
not attempted to produce one that does. I have told you, moreover, 
that the most illustrious interpreters, and the greatest intellects 
among the Pedobaptists, agree that the primitive baptism was immer- 
sion — Stewart, for instance, one of the most learned scholars they 
have ; yet my opponent has paid no attention whatever to this fact. 
Why? Because he dare not do it. Do you suppose that if Mr. 
Fitch could have made any thing out of the classics or lexicons, he 
•would not have used them? 



256 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Then, again, I have gone with him into the Bible. I have shown 
you that John baptized in Jordan; that he baptized at Enon, because 
there was much water there. He does not appear to have sprinkled 
at certain places, because there was much water. I have shown you, 
too, that the Son of God was baptized of John eis ton Iordaneen (in 
Jordan). I have taken his own Bible, which he loves so much, and 
which he thinks we are trying to ruin by revising it — I have taken 
that very book to prove that the Savior was baptized in Jordan, and 
came up out of the water. Certainly there is no sprinkling or pour- 
ing in all this. 

Again : I have gone down to Gaza with him, and witnessed the bap- 
tism of the Ethiopian eunuch. What are the facts in regard to this 
baptism? They both went down into the water, both Philip and the 
eunuch, and he baptized him, and they came up out of the water. Do 
you think there is a Methodist preacher in this town who would, render 
himself so ridiculous as to go down into the water to sprinkle water 
upon a man? Not a man of them would make such a simpleton of 
himself as to do it. There is nothing like sprinkling or pouring here. 
Then I went to the sixth of Romans, and showed you there, that 
whether it was spiritual or water baptism, they were buried by bap- 
tism, wherein they were raised by faith in the operation of God. 
They then went into the water, and came up out of the water. They 
were buried, and, by the gentleman's own confession, we showed you 
this was water baptism. Then they are buried in water baptism into 
his death, and raised up again. Is there any thing like sprinkling or 
pouring here? We have shown you that the pouring out of the 
Spirit of God on Pentecost was accomplished by " ekcheo" and not 
by the word baptizo at all. The gentleman had to go to another 
word to make out his case, and then failed. We are not talking 
merely to be heard. We are talking about the word baptizo. He 
has hunted passage after passage; he has looked the lexicons 
over ; he has searched the Bible through ; and yet not one case of 
sprinkling or pouring has he found ; nor has he attempted to find 
a case of sprinkling. He attempted to find one single case of 
pouring; and in that case it was the outpouring of the Spirit of 
God from heaven, and accomplished by another word. Is this 
not enough to overwhelm an honest man? I could exhort my 
friend, this evening, to turn away from his folly. It seems to me 
that a man must be blinded to every thing, who will cling to a prac- 
tice that is without any authority in God's word, and that, too, when 
he himself has made the effort to determine the question, and has made 
but a single argument, and that a signal and utter failure. In the 
name of reason, will he still cling to his fanaticism, and still trample 
the authority of Jesus Christ under foot? He has talked about it 
all day, and has tried to prove every thing else but the proposition 
he came here to prove. Before I would cling to such a baseless thing, 
and remain in a confessedly human church, never having obeyed 



MR. BROOKS^ FOURTH REPLY. 257 

the command of God, I would trample its authority under my feet, 
and go where God directs, and where the truth of heaven is spoken. 
But I fully sympathize with him, and all others should do so. It is hard 
to move a man who has been born in the lap of error, and rocked in 
the cradle of prejudice. His conscience is at ease, and no amount 
of logic and truth will wake it up. You may pile the one upon his 
defenseless head, and everwhelm him with the other, and yet he sleeps, 
ail unconscious of the storm that rages around him. "This is my 
faith, and I intend to cling to it and die by it." Exactly so. Now, 
what are the classics to him ? They may speak for two thousand 
years with a unanimity that ought to put to silence every caviler, 
but all this is as the idle wind to him. Yea, what is the word of God, 
within the pages of which he can find no proof of his proposition ; 
and, himself being judge, he is not competent to even attempt an 
argument upon more than one single passage in all its pages ; and in 
that, the word baptism does not occur? 

Now, my fellow-citizens, we leave the question with you. You 
have seen his utter and terrible failure. Those of you who are not 
honest to yourselves and to your God, we do not expect to benefit; 
and those of you who are honest, and, after this day's work, can not 
see the truth, we commend to the tender mercies of God. 

{Time Expired.) 
22 i 



FIFTH PROPOSITION. 



THE CHURCH KNOWN AT THIS DAY AS THE "DISCIPLES," OR 

"THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH," IS THE CHURCH WHICH 

WAS INSTITUTED ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST. 



Friday, September 17, 1869. 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Friday, September 17th. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

The proposition for discussion this morning reads: " The 
Church known at this day as the ' Disciples,' or The ' Christian 
Church,' is the Church which was instituted on the day of Pente- 
cost." 

I accepted the statement of this proposition as the best I could 
get. The expression, "Disciples," or " Christian Church," literally 
accepted, conveys a false idea. The Disciples, or Christians, have 
no Church ; it is the Church of Christ. Hence we preferred to 
amend the proposition by substituting " the Church of Christ;" but 
the suggestion elicited no attention whatever, The proposition will 
be debated in the sense in which it was submitted by Mr. Fitch, to- 
wit : the Church to which I belong, which my friend calls " the Dis- 
ciples', or Christian Church," is the Church which was instituted on 
the day of Pentecost. 

It will be observed that my friend here admits what he denied 
in the discussion of the first and second propositions, to-wit : That 
the Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Fitch will 
not so stultify himself as to say that my Church was not the Church 
instituted on the day of Pentecost, when no Church at all was insti- 
tuted on that day. If so, he will involve himself in the unpleasant 
predicament of conceding that there was such a Church instituted, 
when he believed there was not, and that, therefore, he was insin- 
cere in the statement of the proposition. But, surely, when men 
are seeking for the truth, they will not thus attempt to deceive the 
public. I, therefore, put the most charitable construction upon it, 
and am grateful to my friend for this acknowledgment of the truth, 
though I confess my inability to reconcile this admission with the 
desperation with which he fought against this same truth during the 
first two days of this discussion. With the result of that discussion, 
and my friend's admission to-day, I am perfectly satisfied, and hence 
will detain you no longer upon this point. 

The term Church is from the Greek word ecclesia — this from ek- 
halleo, " to call out." The term Church, then, in its primary and 

(2G1) 



262 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

scriptural meaning, signifies, "the called out." Hence the Church 
in the wilderness consisted of those called out from among the na- 
tions of the earth ; so the Church of Christ consists of the called 
oat from among these nations. They are the called, the chosen of 
God. But this Church is not an unorganized mob, but an organized 
body. As Moses was the lawgiver in that, so Christ is the lawgiver 
in this. Again, as that was instituted on the first Pentecost after 
the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, and afterward completed as to its 
organization, when by degrees all the laws and ceremonies of that 
institution had been enacted, so this was instituted on the first 
Pentecost after the slaying of the great antitypical paschal lamb, 
and perfected as to its organization when revelation was completed. 
Hence Paul, in his Epistle to the Church of Corinth, xii: 28, 
says : 

"And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, secondarily 
prophets, thirdly teachers ; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, 
helps, governments, diversities of tongues." 

This work of organizing the Church was committed to the apostles 
of Jesus Christ, and he said to them, just before he ascended into 
heaven: " Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every 
creature : he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he 
that believeth not shall be damned." And, as recorded by Mat- 
thew: " Go teach all nations, baptizing them . . . teaching them 
to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded." You will ob- 
serve how broad is this commission — how exhaustive. They are not 
only to preach the Gospel to the world ; they are not only to teach 
the nations out of Christ, but to baptize them, and to teach them 
all things whatsoever Christ has commanded. More than that, that 
they might be infallibly guided in this work, Christ gave them his 
Spirit, that they might accomplish the great work upon which they 
were sent into the world. Then the Church, in existence at the 
conclusion of the apostolic ministry, is confessedly the Church in- 
stituted by Christ on the day of Pentecost. My friend will not deny 
that that Church in w r hich Paul and John and the apostles of Jesus 
Christ lived and died, was the Church of Christ. There will be no 
debate between him and me on this point. This Church was the 
Church of Christ, and it was right in all respects. My friend will 
not deny it. But in confirmation of this — that it was perfected 
and thoroughly furnished in all its parts for its work in the world — 
I read the following Scriptures: 

"According to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret 
since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the scriptures 
of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting 
God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." — Romans 
xvi: 25, 26. 

The mystery which had been so long kept secret was now made 
known to all nations, for the obedience of faith. But again, we invite 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 263 

your attention to a passage in the fourth chapter of Paul's Epistle to 
the Church at Ephesus: 

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evan- 
gelists ; and some, pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the 
Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of 
the fullness of Christ." 

We want you, my friends, particularly to regard the Scripture 
that follows : 

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and 
carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and 
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speak- 
ing the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is 
the head, even Christ ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together 
and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the ef- 
fectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the 
body unto the edifying of itself in love." 

The Apostle, in this passage, simply declares to us that Christ 
has given all officers to the Church which will be necessary " to build 
it up as the body of Christ, till we all come in the unity of the faith, 
and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto 
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." More than 
that: That every joint in this body is supplied from him, and that 
the body is fitly joined together; that it is compactly joined together 
by that "which every joint supplies." Not one single joint is left 
out of this body ; and. that it continually, "according to the effectual 
working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body 
unto the edifying of itself in love." 

But have these officers, thus furnished by the authority of the Spirit, 
such instructions left them as shall guide them at all times into truth ? 
The Savior said himself that he would send them the Spirit that 
" would guide them into all truth." And Paul says (2 Tim. iii : 16) : 
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God ; and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 
that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all 
good works." 

The Scriptures, then, are profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness, "that the man of God 
may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." We have, 
then, -at the conclusion of the apostolic ministry, a perfect Church 
in the world. A Church coming direct from the hands of the living 
God, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, was in the earth. Now, 
that that Church was the same which Christ established, my friend 
will not for one moment question. This Church was always a unit. 
Christ, in other words, established one Church, and one only, on the 
earth. When spoken of in the Bible, under whatever figure, it is 



264 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

always in the singular number, except where a number of congre- 
gations is spoken of, as when we read of the churches of Christ in 
Galatia. It is a kingdom, house, temple, body, field, church, etc. 

But we shall be told that all evangelical churches constitute the 
Church of Christ, and that they are respectively branches of that 
Church. I propose to accept nothing at the hands of my worthy 
friend for which he can not give to us the word of the Lord. His 
mere ipse dixit will not be received. The only passage of Scripture 
upon which this idea can be based at all is John xv : 5: "I am 
the vine, ye are the branches." 

Are we to suppose that this intimate relation that exists between 
the vine and its branches, exists between Jesus Christ and all these 
conflicting churches or parties ? If these constitute the brandies of 
that Church, I ask where is that unity, and peace, and perfect sim- 
plicity that necessarily ought to exist, if the vine with its branches 
is to represent the perfect unity of which the Savior speaks? The 
Savior said, " Ye — my disciples — are the branches," not individual 
parties. I have been profoundly astonished at this interpretation 
of Scripture. The branches represent individual disciples, and not 
the distinct organizations of the day. I am certain my friend will 
not claim that this intimate union exists in the religious world — 
certainly not in his own dismembered and bleeding party, detracted 
and torn as it is in these United States. Perhaps he will change 
the figure a little, and say these churches constitute the body of 
Christ — are the members of that body, and that each church or party 
is a member of the body of Christ. In proof of this they refer to Paul's 
first epistle to the church at Corinth, where he represents the Church 
under the figure of a body. He says, " Ye are the body of Christ," — 
not ye parties or distinct organizations, for these organizations had 
no existence then ; but, " Ye (christians in the aggregate) are the 
body of Christ and members in particular." Christ is the head, and 
they are the body. Besides, if all these parties are branches, what con- 
stitutes the body? It will not do to say Christ is the body, for 
Christ is the head. Now, if these great parties are branches, where 
is the body? Do you not see the difficulty in which our friends in- 
volve themselves by this assumption? They may have branches, 
but whenever they get them together, they will have simply the 
branches of a trunkless tree ; the body itself is not present. 

Now, that such a divided state of the Church is not compatible 
with the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, will be evident from 
a passage or two that we will read. We will read these things de- 
liberately this morning, because we want these first principles per- 
manently fixed in your minds : 

"Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye all speak the same things, and that there be no 
divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly joined together 
in the same mind and in the same judgment. Is Christ divided? 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 265 

was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of 
PmuI? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and 
Gaius; lest any one should say that I had baptized in my own 
name."— 1 Cor. i: 10-13. 

This dismembered condition of the Church is severely condemned 
in the word of God. My friend will not contend that "these various 
branches are right in the sight of God, and that, therefore, all 
these churches are necessarily right. I wish to say just here, that 
while we deny that any one of these churches is right, necessarily in 
every respect, and while we do not claim that we ourselves may be 
infallibly right in every respect, and are willing to admit that there 
is truth taught within the pale of every church, not even excepting 
the Roman Catholic ; still these churches can not all be divinely 
authorized, because they teach the one just the opposite of what the 
other teaches. If Calvinism is true, Arminianism can not be true ; 
the Church that teaches Arminianism must be wrong, if Calvinism 
is true. I simply use that as an illustration. I will lay it down 
as a principle, that there can be but one Church which is right, if 
there be any. Christ established only one Church. Then there 
can be but one Church on this earth which is divinely sanctioned, 
and, therefore, that Church is the Church of Christ. Now, this is 
just the question I propose to decide this morning. I wish to see 
"whether the Church I represent is that Church which Christ estab- 
lished on earth. How shall we decide this ? Simply by the age of 
the Church ? My friend will at once tell us that ours is not that 
Church, for it is too young — that half a century has not passed 
away since w r e began this reformation. All this may, in one sense, 
be true ; but will my friend tell us how long it is since his church 
began its reformation ? He can only double us in years, but he will 
make us too young; then what becomes of himself? If, indeed, this 
is the way the question is to be settled, what will become of the 
claims of every Protestant Church in the world ? All of them have 
begun since the beginning of the sixteenth century. My friend, by 
this logic, will simply carry himself back into the pale of the Roman 
Catholic Church, yea, land at once in the bosom of the Roman 
Church itself. The Church of my friend came out of the Church 
of England, and the Church of England is legitimately her mother. 
The Church of England came out of the Church of Rome, because 
the Pope, among other things, would not yield to the infamous pur- 
poses of Henry VIII. The gentleman's logic would land him back 
in the bosom of the old grandmother herself. The Church of Eng- 
land separated from the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome 
was the first apostate Church in the world. Now, then, is the 
Church of Rome the true Church, in the light of this question of 
age ? No, sir ; the Church of Rome had not even an organized 
existence as such, until near the middle of the fifth century. The 
Church of Rome, then, is more than four hundred years too young 
23 



266 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to be that Church which was established on the day of Pentecost. 
It had not even aspired to be a distinct organization until the Coun- 
cil of Nice promulgated the creed which was afterward adopted by the 
Roman hierarchy. Not a Church on earth to-day is old enough, 
in the light of this rule, to be the Church of Christ. How, then, 
are we to decide the question ? I can conceive of but_one method, 
viz.: to compare the churches of the world with that divine model 
and perfected Church which the apostles left in the earth ; which 
existed at the close of the apostolic period, and which my friend and 
I both confess to be the Church of Christ. Just here Protectants 
have made their grand mistake. They have racked their brains to 
make out what they call the apostolic succession, a figment of the 
imagination, without truth in history, and contrary to the word of 
God itself. The apostles have no successors. They are in authority 
on the earth as much as ever they were, and Jesus is here with them. 
"We have made it one of our most constant pleas, that we simply 
return to the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ, regardless of 
apostolic succession, so called. Until that is done away with, the 
world can never be converted to the Church of Christ. Just as 
soon as my friend and his Church shall leave these human councils 
and dogmas, and come simply to the apostles of Christ, the work 
shall be easy. 

But we pass on now to the consideration of the first argument I 
propose on this question. In discussing this question, I will argue 
it negatively and affirmatively. The experienced physician, in 
making the diagnosis of a case, sometimes decides more readily what 
the disease really is, by first deciding what it is not. We propose 
to decide this question in this way. 

My first argument is based on the fact, that Christ founded the 
Church of Christ, and that it is built upon the foundation of apostles 
and prophets. "Upon this rock," says the Savior, "I will build 
my Church." Again: ''And are buiit upon the foundation of 
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- 
stone." — Enh. ii : 20. Now, then, Christ himself founded and 
built this Church upon this truth. He, then, is the founder of this 
Church. This doctrine, upon which the apostles built it, is the 
foundation of this Church, and nothing else. 

The Church of my friend can not be that Church, in the light of 
these facts; for, first, the founder of his Church was John Wesley. 
Rev. Nathan Bangs, D. D., in the " History of all Religious Denom- 
inations," says, p. 425: "It is well known that the founder of Meth- 
od Um, under God, ivas the Rev. John Wesley, a presbyter of the 
Church of England." 

In the same work, Rev. J. Timberman, of the Wesleyan Con- 
nection, says, p. 478 : " The polity of the original Wesleyan societies 
rested upon the principle that their illustrious founder had a right to 



mr. brooks's first address. 267 

control every minister and preacher, and every member of his soci- 
eties, in all matters of a prudential character." 

Besides, Mr. Wesley himself says, in reference to this matter, as 
quoted on page 48 of ''Methodism," by Inskip (he is writing to Dr. 
Asbury): "There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation 
wherein you stand to the Americans, and the relation wherein I 
stand to the Methodists. You are the elder brother of the American 
Methodists. I am, under God, the father of the whole family. 
Therefore, I naturally care for you all in a manner no other person 
can do Do not seek to be something. Let me be noth- 
ing, and Christ be all in all ! One instance of this — of your great- 
ness — has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you, 
suffer yourself to be called a bishop? I shudder — I start at the 
very thought. Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a rascal, a 
scoundrel, and I am content; but they never shall, by my consent, 
call me bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, 
put a full end to this." Mr. Wesley, then, claimed to be the founder 
of the Church, the father of ail Methodists, and hence the right to 
rule them all. Nor was he willing that any one else, by becoming 
a bishop, should interfere with this right. 

Now, then, according to Mr. Wesley, and the lights of the gen- 
tleman's Church, he is the father and founder of that Church. 

Iu the second place, that Church can not be the true Church, for 
it is confessedly a human institition. Now, my dear friends, I 
do not speak in any other spirit than that of kindness, and only 
seek the truth. I repeat it : the/Methodist is not the true Church, 
for it is confessedly a human institution. In proof of this, I read 
from Dr. Hinkie's " Platform of Methodism," as quoted by Mr. 
Graves in his " Iron Wheel," p. 57: 

"Methodism has, from the beginning, been, in a most striking 
manner, the child of Providence. Nearly all its peculiar character- 
istics were adopted, without any previous design, on the part of the 
instruments by whose agency it was brought into organized exist- 
ence, as circumstances seemed to require, and without expectation 
of their becoming elements in a permanent ecclesiastical constitution." 

Brought into existence, as circumstances seemed to require, and 
without expectation of their becoming elements in a permanent ecclesi- 
astical constitution. Again : I read a brief extract from Mr. Inskip's 
"Methodism," p. 54: 

"Finally, it may be said, Methodism, in Fngland and America, 
was a special system. It originated in as dark and unpropitious a 
period, almost, as ever known in the history of Protestant Christian- 
ity. Immorality, heresy, and spiritual death had gained a fearful 
ascendency, when it was instituted. To meet the emergency which 
then existed, God raised up a company of great men — men who 
were great in intellectual endowmeut, moral excellence, and in- 
ventive genius. There was John Wesley, who has justly been 



268 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

designated the greatest of ecclesiastical legislators ; Whitfield, the 
most extraordinary of pulpit orators; Charles Wesley, among the 
best of poets ; Coke, the leader of modern missionaries ; Asbury, 
the most laborious of bishops; and Clark and Benson — one the 
most learned, the other the best practical commentator ever known. 
These men devised this powerful instrumentality, well styled ' Chris- 
tianity in earnest.'" 

But my friend will tell you that these are but the opinions of men, 
and not of authority with him. Yet he knows that they were dis- 
tinguished men in his Church, and that they were in high positions. 

Well, I will read from a little work in my hand, which even my 
friend will acknowledge is authority on this question. I quote from 
the Introduction to the "Discipline," which is signed by Joshua Soule, 
James O. Andrew, Bobert Paine, George F. Pierce, John Early, 
Hubbard H. Kavauaugh, William M. Wightman, Enoch M. Marvin, 
David S. Doggett, and Holland N. McTyeire. They say : 

" We esteem it our duty and privilege most earnestly to recom- 
mend to you, as members of our Church, our form of discipline, 
which has been founded on the experience of a long series of years; 
as also on the observations and remarks we have made on ancient 
and modern Churches." 

The Methodist Church, then, in its owti Discipline, does not claim 
to be founded upon the Lord Jesus Christ, on the foundation of 
apostles and prophets, but simply and wholly upon u the experience of 
a long series of years, and the observations and remarks we have made 
on ancient and modem Churches !" Now. I ask, if that Church, which 
is the "result of inventive genius," and " is devised by the wisdom of 
men," and based simply upon "the experience of years," is founded 
upon Christ? In the light, then, of this confession, the Methodist 
Church is a human institution in every sense of that word, and its own 
authors, and bishops, and creed, do not claim for it any tiling more. 
Remember, friends, I am simply talking of the Methodist Church, 
as an organization, and not of Methodists, for we have no quarrel 
with them. 

Now, then, the primitive Church was founded upon the truth that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. We, as a people, 
have builded upon this foundation, and, hence, we call upon men 
simply to confess that truth before the world. Now T , one more re- 
mark, just here, before w : e pass on : 

If Methodism, this human institution, was swept from the face 
of the earth to-day; if that which is "founded upon the experience 
of a long series of years, and upon observations and remarks on 
ancient and modern Churches," was banished the earth, Christianity 
would remain. But banish from the earth the truth that "Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of the living God," and not one Christian 
will be left behind. Do you not see that this is the only Apostolic 
basis, and that, upon it alone, can we feel any safety? Then, we 



mr. brooks's first address. 269 

are that Church, for upon this foundation we build the Church, and 
Paul says, "Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, 
which is Jesus Christ." — 1 Cor. iii. 

My next argument in favor of the proposition is based upon the 
name of the Church. The Apostolic Church was called the Church 
of God — the Church of Christ. Does the Church of my friend 
fill the bill? Suppose the gentleman, some eighteen centuries 
ago, had been walking the streets of Corinth, and had met a gen- 
tleman, and said, "Good morning, sir; can you tell me where 
the Methodist Episcopal Church South is, in this city?" "Well, 
really, sir," replies the Corinthian, "Methodist Episcopal Church 
South! why, I have never heard of such a Church — certainly not 
in this city, or in this part of the world. There is no such Church 
in Asia. You say it is called the Church South f Well, you may 
find it down South, in the jungles of Africa; I am certain you 
will not find it among the civilized nations of Europe or Asia." 
"Well, sir, have you no Church here at all?" "Oh, yes; I my- 
self am an humble member of the Church of Christ." "But, do you 
not think it exclusive and arrogant to say that your Church is the 
Church of Christ?" "Arrogant! Exclusive! I can not see it in 
that way, sir. Christ himself founded that Church, and built it; 
why should we not call it after him? It is not my Church, nor that 
of any one else, and it would be the height of impudence and ar- 
rogance to call it by any other name. But since you see fit to 
catechize me, may I ask you a few questions?" "Certainly, sir." 
"What Church do you belong to, and who founded your Church?" 
" John Wesley." "John Wesley! Then why do n't you call it the 
Church of Wesley?" "Oh, but there are other Christians, fol- 
lowers of Wesley, and we want to distinguish ourselves from these." 
"Do I understand you to say you wish to distinguish yourselves 
from other Christians?" "Yes, sir." "Why, by what book are 
you governed?" "By the Discipline." "Ah, well, that explains 
the matter. Since you have a human founder, and a human book, 
of course yours is a human institution, and you have a right to 
call it what you please. The Church I belong to is a divine in- 
stitution, has a divine book, a divine founder, and a divine name. 
I know no difference between Christian Churches, North, South, 
East, or West, and I make no distinction between them." In the 
light of the name, which is the Church ? 

Again: my third argument is based upon the name given the 
Christians, or members of this primitive Church. They were called 
"brethren," but this name was not exhaustive, for the question 
might be asked : " Brethren " of whom ? " Children," but children of 
whom? "Disciples," disciples of whom? But again, they were 
called Christians. Christians! Now, none can mistake this appel- 
lation. They were called Christians both by the pagans and those 
within the Church itself, and this term is simply exhaustive. Every 



270 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

one knows what a Christian is — a follower of Christ; an anointed 
one. In Acts xi: 26, we read : "And it came to pass, that a whole 
year they assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much 
people, and called the disciples Christians first at Antioch." I have 
thus read the passage in harmony with the" original. They were then, 
by divine authority, called Christians. 

But again: The inspired Apostle, calling them Christians, says: 
" Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed ; but 
let him glorify God on this behaif." 

Said Agrippa unto Paul: "Almost thou persuadest me to be 
a Christian." They were known by the same name among the 
pagans. Trajan, the emperor, writing to Pliny, said: "You have 
taken the right method, my Pliny, in your proceedings with those 
who have been brought before you as Christians." — Infidelity Refuted, 
by A. Campbell, p. 105. They were then known as Christians. 
This was their distinctive name. Does the Church of my friend 
fill the bill in the light of this characteristic? Do they call them- 
selves Christians simply ? No, sir. They call themselves Methodists. 
They call us Campbellites and Reformers. No intelligent man or 
woman among us accepts such appellations ; we simply call ourselves 
Christians. We have, indeed, a few weak brethren and sisters, who, 
for fear of wounding the feelings of somebody, will call themselves 
Reformers. My conviction is that they had better offend man than 
God. We are Christians simply, and nothing else. Well, I shall 
be told again that this is very selfish and arrogant. Not at all. Is 
it selfish for the bride to call herself after her husband's name ? It 
would be very selfish if it were otherwise — if the bride should refuse 
to be called by his name. Jesus Christ is the great bridegroom, the 
Church is the bride. It would be exceedingly unchaste to call the 
Church by any other name. 

We pass on to consider, in the fourth place, the creed of the 
Church. What was the creed of this primitive Church? The 
Bible only. For three hundred and twenty-five years there Avas 
no written and authoritative human creed on the face of this earth. 
Individual men had written their opinions, but there was no council, 
or church, that authoritatively put forth a creed, until the Council 
of Nice, A. D. 325, which adopted the Nicene Creed, and put it forth 
authoritatively. In consequence of its promulgation, the streets of 
Constantinople, and other eastern cities, were drenched with martyr 
blood. This was the result of making the first creed, and my friend 
has followed in their footsteps, and he has already distracted and 
divided the Church of God by so doing. The primitive Church had 
no creed but the Bible. Until the Bible was written, they had apos- 
tles and prophets who taught them the truth as it is in Christ ; but 
when revelation was completed, the apostles and prophets passed 
away. They had the Bible, but nothing else, for nearly three hundred 
years. But my friend will tell us that ours is an unwritten creed. 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 271 

An unwritten creed never divided the Church of God, since the 
world began. More than that, a church without a written creed has 
never divided. All the divisions have been in churches that have 
had written creeds. Not a church in the world, since it began, has 
divided without a human creed. 

A few years ago, it was the boast of our enemies, that, since we 
had no human creed or bond of union, when Mr. Campbell should 
pass away, we would go all to pieces; and because we had no creed, 
we w r ere denounced as "pirates" upon the broad seas, by one of the 
highest ecclesiastical courts in Kentucky. Strange that they did not 
remember that the primitive Church was never divided until they 
made a human creed ; then it was that the streets of Constantinople 
and the plains of the East were drenched in tiie blood of the slaugh- 
tered Arians. 

But how has the prophecy of our friends eventuated ? A terrible 
and fearful civil struggle has swept over the country and baptized 
it in blood. Just as the smoke of battle began to clear aw r ay, the 
sage of Bethany, with the setting sun, sank to sleep. Peace has 
again been restored to our smitten country, and the ashes of the 
grand old hero molder back to dust, hard by the rushing waters of 
Buffalo, fraught with so many sad and joyous memories to him. 
But how is it with his brethren? Sleep on, thou great and mighty 
one! All, all is well ! From the lakes to the gulf; from ocean to 
ocean ; on Albion's plains and Scotland's heights; in the isles of the 
sea, on Oceanica's shores, thy brethren are at peace. The old ship 
has weathered the storm again, and she hung no banner at her mast- 
head save that upon which was emblazoned, in colors of living light, 
the lone star of Bethlehem, and which was stained alone with the 
blood of her glorious captain. Pirates, indeed ! If so, thank God 
our flag is not stained with human gore ! No, no ; we have not the 
memory of Servetus to blacken our fame, or of Roger Williams to 
mar our peace. 

But how with our friends, and their human bonds of union? 
Broken and crushed, their vessels are stranded upon the beach, their 
crews are divided and engaged in deadly strife with each other. 
They, indeed, struggled hard to hold to their moorings amid the 
storm, but their bonds of union, like rotten cables, snapped asunder 
when the first wave of passion broke upon them. The experiment 
has been fairly tried, and has proved a failure. Human bonds of 
union are no bonds at all. Slake, then, one grand bonfire with 
all of them. Take the only bond of union that God ever intended 
for man, "the Bible, and the Bible alone" — in the language of 
Luther — "as the creed of the Protestant, and the right of private 
interpretation." 

My fifth argument is founded upon the confession — Matthew xvi : 
16-1*8: 

"And Simon Peter answered, and said, Thou art the Christ, the 



272 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Son of the Living God. And Jesus answered, and said unto him, 
Blessed art thou, Simon, son of Jona; for flesh and blood hath not 
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I 
say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will 
build my Church ; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it." 

Again : The Apostle Paul, who had never been in Rome, who had 
never seen the Roman brethren, but simply from his knowledge of 
the universality of this confession, claimed that it was in the mouth 
of every brother in that Church. He says: " The word is nigh 
thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that is the word of faith 
which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord 
Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from 
the dead, thou shalt be saved : for with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salva- 
tion." — Rom. x. 

This confession, then, had been upon the lips of every man in 
the Roman Church. It was the great truth necessary to be con- 
fessed by every Christian man. 

Again, Paul says to Timothy, vi : 1,2: 

''Fight the good fight of faith, whereunto thou art also called, 
and hast professed a good confession before many witnesses." Tim- 
othy, then, had made this confession. 

Now, in harmony with this, Philip said to the eunuch, " If thou 
believest, thou mayest." "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of 
the Living God." Upon this confession, Philip admitted him to 
baptism and the privileges of the Church of God. 

Now, in the light of this confession, I ask, which is the true 
Church? This was the primitive practice. All the believing peni- 
tent was required to do to be admitted to baptism was to confess 
this truth. We only require this confession ; but how is it with my 
friend ? I read you, briefly, from his Discipline his method of pro- 
cedure : 

" Question. — Do you earnestly desire to flee from the wrath to 
come, and to be saved from your sins ? 

Answer. — I do, the Lord being my helper. Amen. 

Q. — Do you renounce the world, with all its vanities, together 
with all sinful practices, so that you will not follow or be led by 
them? 

A. — I solemnly renounce them all, God being my helper. Amen. 

Q. — Do you promise to conform to the usages of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South? 

A. — I do, the Lord being my helper. Amen. 

Q. — And will you diligently and prayerfully strive to keep God's 
holy will and commandments, and to walk in the same all the days 
of your life? 

A. — I will endeavor to do so, the Lord being my helper. Amen.' 1 

Now, in the light of this confession, I ask, which is the true 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST ADDRESS. 273 

Church ? I boldly affirm that my friend does not ask a single ques- 
tion that the primitive Church did. ]N"ow, we ask this same ques- 
tion, and only this, and hence are like that Church, the Divine 
model, which my friend Avill admit is right; while he, on the other 
hand, is directly opposed to it, in asking questions for which he has 
no authority — no " Thus saith the Lord " — no right, except the 
human right, upon which he claims that his Church is founded, 
namely: "The experience of years, and observations and remarks 
made on ancient and modern churches." 

My sixth argument is based upon the fact that the primitive 
Church immersed all who came into its fellowship. Now T , I do not 
desire to introduce the question of baptism, and argue it to-day. I 
will simply read, in affirmation of this truth, witnesses on the side 
of my friend — the great leading Pedobaptists of earth, those who 
were the lights of the Pedobaptist world, and who, therefore, are im- 
partial witnesses, so far as this question is concerned. Mosheim, 
the great German ecclesiastical historian, a man who stands in the 
first rank of critics, says: 

" The sacrament of baptism was administered in this (the second) 
century, without the public assemblies, in places appointed for that 
purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the 
baptismal font. Those adult persons that desired to be baptized 
(among the collegiants) received the sacrament of baptism according 
to the ancient and primitive manner of celebrating that institution, 
ever by immersion." 

Dr. Wall, my friend's great Pedobaptist champion, who has writ- 
ten more successfully in defense of infant baptism than all other 
men, says: " Their (the primitive Christians) general and ordinary 
way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it 
were an infant, or a grown man or woman, into the water. This 
is so plain and clear, by an infinite number of passages, as one can 
not but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would main- 
tain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown and show a dis- 
like of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English an- 
ti-Pedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. It was in all 
probability the way by which our blessed Savior, and for certain 
Mas the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Chris- 
tians did receive their baptism. 'Tis a great want of prudence, as 
well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is cer- 
tainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the 
rest one says. As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first 
coming up in England, ' Let them defend it who use it.' " 

But again : I hasten on, for I want to quote others of these leading 
men. Neander says, on this subject: "Only with the sick was 
there an exception in regard to immersion. " 

{Time Expired.') 



274 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

My friend has undertaken to prove two things to-day. It de- 
volves upon him to prove, first, that a Church was instituted on the 
day of Pentecost, and then he must prove that the Church known 
at this day as the " Disciples," or "Christian Church," is the same 
one which was instituted on the day of Pentecost. I w T ill here re- 
mind you that if he only presents some points of similarity between 
his Church and the Apostolic Church, he fails to sustain his propo- 
sition. He undertakes, according to the wording of this proposition, 
to prove that the Church known at the present day as the " Dis- 
ciples," or the " Christian Church," is the identical Church insti- 
tuted on the day of Pentecost. 

If he simply contends that there are points of resemblance, then 
the proposition ought to be " There are more points of resemblance 
between the 'Christian Church' and the Church instituted on the 
day of Pentecost, than can be found in any other Church." It 
becomes necessary for him to prove these two things, and if he fails 
to prove them, all his claims with reference to the divinity of his 
Church fall to the ground, and he is nothing more than a sectarian, 
as he denominates all who diifer from him. I appeal to the intelli- 
gence of this congregation to know whether he has yet proved either 
one of the points which it is actually necessary for him to prove. 
Did he prove by the New Testament that the reformation, professing 
to have a " Thus saith ihe Lord" for all its doctrines and practices, 
of which he is a champion, w T as commenced at Pentecost? Did he 
prove by the word of God that a new Church was instituted on the 
day of Pentecost? or has he presented a single scriptural proof that 
the Church which he represents here to-day is the identical Church 
mentioned in the second of Acts ? 

I find that the brother is just as far from a knowledge of the 
truth, with reference to the true character of the Church, as he has 
been on all the propositions he has discussed during the week, as I 
shall show by a careful examination of the word of God. He says 
I admitted the Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost. This 
is very strange, when I spent two hours and a half on Monday in 
proving that there was no kingdom set up, and no Church insti- 
tuted, by the Lord Jesus Christ, or by the apostles, on the day of 
Pentecost. Yet he gets up here and tells you that I admitted that. 
When did I make such an admission ? When did I admit, either 



MR. FITCH'S FIEST REPLY. 275 

directly, or by implication, that Jesus Christ, or any of his apostles, 
set up a kingdom, or established a Church, on the day of Pentecost? 
I have never made such an admission, and I never expect to make 
such an admission, because I know the thing is not true. 

I want to call the attention of my friend to another expression of 
his. I do it simply because he claims that his whole system and all 
the practices of his Church are based upon the New Testament, and 
professes to be able to furnish a "Thus saith the Lord," for every 
thing in his Church, its polity, its name, and every thing else con- 
nected with it. I call upon the brother to find in the New Testa- 
ment an expression which he has used several times in his speeches — 
the "Church of Christ." When the apostles referred to different 
bodies of Christians, located at different places, they called them the 
"Churches of Christ," and never the "Church of Christ." In its 
collective capacity they invariably call it the "Church of God." 
And, I believe, it is called the "Church of the first-born ;"• but 
never is the expression, the "Church of Christ," used. It is not in 
the New Testament; and if he contends that it may be called the 
Church of Christ, because Christ bought it with his blood, and be- 
cause it is taught by implication, then we can claim a great many 
things on the same ground. 

He speaks about the organization of the Church, and about the com- 
mission, I believe, being the great constitution of the Church; but did 
he offer one single passage to prove that any church was organized 
at Pentecost? I call your attention to the second chapter of the 
"Acts of the Apostles," and I defy any man to show one word there 
upon the subject of organization, or the setting up of a kingdom, or 
the institution of a church, or the giving of a constitution. The 
terms of salvation were simply presented to the people — the sys- 
tem of religion proclaimed, and that was all there was of it. I 
will attend to this matter more particularly when I progress farther 
in my argument. 

I want to read the passages to which your attention was called by 
my friend. I read the passage from Homans : " Now to him that is 
of power to establish you according to my gospel, and the preaching 
of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which 
was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and 
by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment 
of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience 
of faith." Is there a single word about a church being instituted on 
the day of Pentecost, or about Mr. B.'s Church, in the passage ? The 
leading idea contained in the text is the revelation of that mystery, 
" which was kept secret since the world began," which was the fact 
that the Gentiles were to be made partakers with the Jews of the 
blessings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the thought upon 
which the Apostle is touching. Nothing is said about the institution 
of a church. The affirmant next referred to the fourth of Ephesians, 



276 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

and read the following passages : "And he gave some, apostles ; and 
some, prophets ; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teach- 
ers for the perfecting of the saints, for the "work of the ministry, for 
the edifying of the body of Christ ; till we all come in the unity of 
the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect 
man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ ; from 
whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that 
which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in 
the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the 
edifying of itself in love." Is there any thing in this text that re- 
fers to the institution of a Church on the day of Pentecost, or that 
refers to the "Christian Church'" being instituted on that day? We 
will now follow him to the third chapter of second Timothy, 
from which he read: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, 
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruc- 
tion in righteousness ; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly 
furnished unto all good works." Like the other passage we have 
read, this contains nothing in proof of the proposition which he is 
trying to maintain. 

There is one place in the New Testament, and only one, where 
I find a people or a church presenting points of similarity to my 
friend's Church, and that had to be reconstructed and indoctri- 
nated by the Apostle Paul. We read of a number of persons at 
Ephesus whom some one had baptized. Saint Paul visited them, 
and preached to them concerning the gift of the Holy Ghost. They 
were astonished, and replied that they had never heard of the Holy 
Ghost. They had heard considerable upon the subject of baptism, 
but had never been taught the existence of the Holy Spirit. Saint 
Paul placed his hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost, 
and he baptized and received them into the Methodist Church. And 
when Saint John wrote the book of Revelations, that Church at Ephe- 
sus was one of the best churches in the land. That, in its origin and 
primitive state, resembles his Church more than the Church of which 
we read in the second of Acts. The brother says that the Church, 
when spoken of in the Bible, is represented as being united ; it is 
spoken of under the figure of a "field," and a "vineyard," and a 
"body." I want to call your attention to some of these passages, 
as I pass along, where the Church is called a "vineyard," a "body," 
etc. I will read first from the twelfth chapter of Mark, and you will 
see whether the idea of a church being instituted on the day of Pen- 
tecost is taught where the unity of the Church is taught : 

"A certain man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and 
digged a place for the wiuefat, and built a tower, and let it out to 
husbandmen, and went into a far country. And, at the season, he 
sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the 
husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard ; and they caught him, and 
beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 277 

another servant, and at him they cast stones, and wounded him in 
the head, and sent him away shamefully handled. And again he 
sent another, and him they killed, and many others; beating some, 
and killing some. Having yet, therefore, one son, his well-beloved, 
he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. 
But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir ; come, 
let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took 
him, and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What shall, 
therefore, the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy 
the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others." 

Who was that "certain man"? Every one will admit that he 
was God. Who was the "Son" here spoken of? He was Jesus 
Christ. This is also mentioned in another one of the gospels; but, I 
believe, all that is essential to a proper understanding of the subject 
is contained in what I have read. This vineyard is supposed to repre- 
sent the Church. My friend called your attention to it, with the 
statement that it represents the unity of the Church, which proves 
what we have all along been contending for ; that no new church, in 
the sense in which he understands it, was instituted on the day of 
Pentecost. Christ " came to his own, and his own received him not," 
and he expelled those who would not receive him from the Church, 
and brought in the Gentiles to supply their places, while those who 
did receive him continued in the Church. I will call your attention 
to another one of these parables after awhile. The brother said also 
that he would accept nothing from me as proof, except Scripture. 
I shall hold him to the same rule, especially since he contends that 
his whole system is based upon the Bible, and upon the Bible alone. 
I shall call upon him for a " Thus saith the Lord " for every propo- 
sition he lays down. I call upon him in the first place for a "Thus 
saith the Lord," to prove that a Church was intituted on the day of 
Pentecost ; and I call upon him in the second place for a " Thus saith 
the Lord " showing that his Church was instituted at Pentecost. 
Deductions and inferences will not do, we must have a " Thus saith 
the Lord " for it all. 

My friend wants to know how all these different sects, as he calls 
them, can be different branches of the Church, and asks, if they are 
branches, where is the body? We Methodists claim to be branches, 
because it is said: "I am the vine, ye are the branches." If one 
man can be a branch, then ten men can be branches. In the iNew 
Testament, when two bodies of believers, located at different places, 
are spoken of, they are called Churches; but when the entire body 
of believers is designated, it is called the Church of God. Taking 
this as a precedent, when I wish to sps-ak of a number of individual 
branches associated together in one body, as the Methodist body, 
why may I not call that body a branch of God's Church or vine? 
I might illustrate this by a figure which the Apostle himself em- 
ployed for a like purpose. I will take the figure of a man. A man 



278 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

is not all eyes, else where were the hearing? Nor all ears, else 
where were the seeing? Nor all hands, nor all feet; but these are 
all different members of the same body ; so we are all members of 
Christ. Because the Methodist branch and the Presbyterian branch 
do not grow out of the body of the vine at the same place with the 
Christian branch, it does not follow that they are not branches. The 
branch which is at the top of the vine, need not say to those which 
are lower down, you are not brauches, because you and I do not 
spring from the same point. My brother would make us all one 
branch, although Christ says, " I am the vine, ye are the branches." 
As the several brandies and scions of a vine, when spoken of collec- 
tively, are called the vine, so the several bodies of the Christian 
Church, wdien spoken of collectively, can be called the " Church of 
God." 

How pathetically the brother referred to the divisions of the 
Methodist Church, when he represented her as bleeding at every 
pore. He has certainly forgotten what he himself said, one day, 
during this debate. He said, on that occasion, that Methodism in 
all this country was one. I venture to assert that the Methodist 
churches in this country are as much united, as the different Chris- 
tian churches, so-called. I can designate " Christian churches," 
(I will use that? term as a matter of courtesy, as he wishes me to do 
so, and I am disposed to be accommodating,) in which men are 
held to discipline for engaging in the traffic of whisky, or other 
intoxicating liquors, and I can also show other churches where this 
thing is tolerated, and men are not held to discipline for engaging 
in the traffic. So far as the fundamental doctrines of Christianity 
are concerned, we are more united than my brother's churches are. 
There are, in reality, fewer points of difference, because we do not 
differ at all with regard to our articles of religion, but simply in 
respect to church polity, politics, and things of that land. When it 
comes to the great fundamental doctrines we are united, and he has 
already acknowledged it. 

What will the brother make out of that transaction recorded in 
the New Testament where Paul and Peter disagreed? Each thought 
the other was wrong, and they separated, and one went one way 
and the other another way. Paul founded and built up churches, 
and Peter founded and built up churches, and yet they could not 
agree. So Abraham and Lot, when there was strife among their 
servants, agreed to separate in a similar manner. The thing for 
which the brother contends is not unity, but uniformity, and there 
is quite a difference between these two things. There may be unity 
without uniformity, and I doubt very much whether there ever will 
be uniformity in this world. 

He told us yesterday that the Baptists were in the kingdom ; and 
yet, they do not belong to his organization. If he will read the 
Methodist Discipline, and Baptist "Confession of Faith," he will 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 279 

find that there is less difference between them than there is between 
the Baptists and the Christians. Just let him make the compari- 
son, and he will find that, so far as all fundamental or essential 
principles are concerned, I am correct. He is separated from the 
Baptist by essential differences of doctrine, while we differ from the 
Baptists merely upon Church polity and the mode of baptism. 

The brother admits at last that he is not infallible, and that there 
may be good people even in other denominations. I would like to 
know what becomes of that famous text, from which every preacher of 
his Church in this country has preached, " Others may be right, and 
they may be wrong, but we know that we are right and can not be wrong." 
If they can not be wrong, they must be infallible. If they are right, 
and can not be wrong, there is no probability of others being right, 
and to declare that they may be, and yet differ from them, is a manifest 
contradiction, and yet he inveighs against popery. Did ever any Pope, 
who thundered his anathemas against heretics, and excommunicated 
persons from his Church, contend for greater infallibility than that? 
I have heard such a doctrine as that preached in the town of Win- 
chester, " We are right and can not be wrong" and yet, he gets up 
here and admits that he and his brethren may be fallible. He will 
claim, in his pulpit, when there is no one about to show up his errors, 
that he is right and can not be wrong ; but when an antagonist has 
followed him through all his devious ways, and ferreted out all his 
errors, and exposed his perversions of God's word, he is, forsooth, 
willing to admit that his Church may be wrong. They exclude all 
Pedobaptists from the kingdom. Has he not, again and again, ex- 
horted me and my brethren to come into the kingdom? to flee the 
wrath to come? and does he not say that w T e are on the way to hell? 
And yet, he inveighs against popery, while he assumes, for his own 
Church, infallibility. If I had the assurance to rise in this pul- 
pit, and affirm, before an intelligent audience, that I was right, 
and could not be wrong, I would never, on any occasion, admit that 
there was a probability of my being wrong. He contradicts what 
he has said elsewhere, by saying that he does not claim infallibil- 
ity. And now, for the sake of reason, and right, and consistency, 
I hope he will never claim any thing of the kind again. 

Here, two men come to the examination of a passage of Scripture; 
men of equal integrity, of equal information, of equal intelligence. 
The}'- examine the passage carefully and prayerfully, and one arrives 
at one conclusion, and the other arrives at a different conclusion. 
It is simply a difference of judgment. Is either one of them justi- 
fied in saying that he is right and can not be wrong? If he does 
so, he claims infallibility, and the person who claims infallibility ar- 
rogates to himself a quality that belongs alone to God. I will en- 
deavor to show the brother better than that, and I think he is on 
the right road to arrive at the truth now. 

After he had occupied about thirty minutes in presenting these 



280 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

passages of Scripture which I have read to you, and which prove 
nothing in regard to the proposition he has undertaken to sustain, he 
changed his position, and endeavored to prove that the Methodist 
Church was not instituted on the day of Pentecost. I thank God 
that I have too much sense to affirm that it was. I do not make 
any such absurd and unscriptural assertions as that, and he need not 
have spent half an hour in trying to disprove what no Methodist 
claims ; and then he entertained us with a most beautiful declamation 
upon Church unity, which elicited my highest admiration. I would 
like to get that part of his speech when I preach a union sermon, in 
order that I may insert it. But what did it prove ? Nothing at all. 
You will remember that he told me on yesterday that I had not pro- 
duced a single argument. What did I do, then ? I thought I was 
making an argument all the time. But according to his assertion, I 
did not even make an effort. That is very strange. It is very evi- 
dent that he does not understand his own vernacular sufficiently 
well to know the meaning of the term effort. I certainly must have 
made an effort, if I did not do anything else. But this morning the 
brother came very near not making even an effort, for his effort, if we 
may dignify it with that name, w<as a signal failure. I can found 
a church to-day which will be a veritable Church of God. How may 
a Church be founded? When a minister goes into a region where 
the Gospel has never been preached, for the purpose of establishing 
a Church, does he carry along with him a perfect organization, w T ith 
positive laws, with legal enactments, and invite the people to enter 
this organization, promising them salvation if they will so do? Is 
that the way in which churches are founded ? No, sir. He simply 
preaches the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The people believe his mes- 
sage, accept Christ as their Savior, and are saved through faith in 
him. They then receive the rite of baptism, by which they are initi- 
ated into the society of believers, and enter into covenant relationship 
with God. They are then a Scriptural Church and a Church of God. 
Alexander Campbell, John Wesley, Martin Luther, and many other 
preachers, have founded or established churches in this way. They 
laid the foundation by preaching Christ, and those who believed 
were built upon that foundation. Mr. B. says that the Methodist 
Church came out of the Romish Church. Will he tell us from 
whence came his Church t The very first organization they had in 
this country was composed principally of persons who had been ex- 
cluded from the Baptist Church. I would like for him to give us 
the beginning of the Baptist Church in this country. If my good 
friend (the President Moderator) was not sitting before me, I would 
tell him. If he can trace his genealogy to Pentecost without pass- 
ing through the same Church out of which, he says, we came, then 
he is truly a great man, and will have accomplished a great feat. 
He certainly could prove Apostolic succession. He says that he 
thinks we believe in Apostolic succession. Well, suppose we do, 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 281 

what has that to do with the question? Apostolic succession is 
a mere fancy of the enthused imagination of some over-zealous per- 
son. 

The brother asserts that Christ founded the Church upon the 
apostles, and the prophets, and upon himself. If he founds it upon 
the apostles and prophets, how does he get the prophets into the 
foundation after the day of Pentecost? Probably he may say that 
he means the prophets of the New Testament. But the Scripture 
says "the prophets," and no one is excluded who is a prophet; a 
plain, common sense interpretation of the passage would include all 
the prophets of the Old Testament as well as those of the New. 
The prophets are a part of that foundation. They held the same 
foundation principles. They preached just what Christ and the 
apostles preached. Every doctrine of religion or morals which is 
taught in the New Testament is taught in the Old Testament. 

My friend told us that, when he was talking about the Methodist 
Church, he was not talking about the Methodist people. He is able 
to make nicer discriminations than I am. I suppose he has more 
" logical and strategical acuteness" as he calls it, than I have. He 
then proceeds to talk about, the name of the Church, and he hnmvs 
he is right because he has the right name. I will read what Alex- 
ander Campbell says about the name of the Church (Mill. Har., 
New Series, vol. 4, p. 24) : 

" Have we any divine authority for being called Christians at 
all ? The same question may be variously propounded ; as, for 
example, was the name Christian first given by heaven or earth, by 
Goil or man? Or was it recommended by human authority, and, 
finally, adopted by divine authority? We may, fearlessly, affirm, 
from all that has recently been written on the subject, and from all 
thar is in the New Testament, that no person can possibly prove that 
it was divinely introduced or sanctioned." 

That is what he savs about the origin of the name Christian. 
The name originated just as did the name Methodist. There is no 
divine authority for it, It was not given by divine authority. Mr. 
Campbell is right here. The disciples were first called " men of 
this sect," " men of this way," '* Nazarenes," and when some of the 
apo-tles went to Antioch and preached, the Antiochians, by way of 
reproach, called them Christians, because they pivaehed the doc- 
trines of Christ. The name Christian is no more of divine appoint- 
ment than the name Methodist. To call a man a Methodist does 
not make him any the leSvS a Christian than to call him Peter. My 
friend intimated that some of his brethren would not call themselves 
Christians for fear of offending some one by so doing ; and he gave 
it as his opinion that they had better offend men by calling them- 
selves Christians, than to offend God by refusing to call themselves 
Christians. It is my opinion that the man who gets drunk, swears, 
and overreaches his neighbor in his commercial transactions with 
24 



282 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

him, offers God a greater insult by calling himself by the name of 
his Messiah than he would by refusing the name. Mr. B. says that 
he knows th^ people whom he leads in the way of salvation. As 
for myself, I leave it to others to say whether I am a Christian. I 
desire and am striving to be one, but I do not expect to become one 
simply by assuming the name. Shame on such bigotry. Does the 
simple fact, that a man calls himself a Christian, make him a Chris- 
tian? But Mr. Campbell says that there is no divine authority for 
the name. Our friends might as well call themselves " disciples" or 
"Nazarenes," if they are the followers of the despised Nazarene. 
There is just as much divine authority for either of these as for 
Christians. There is nothing in a name. He knew that he was 
right in claiming that his Church was instituted on the day of Pen- 
tecost, because they have the right confession. He read the con- 
fession which we require every one to make who enters our Church, 
and we find his confession contained in it. The difference consists 
in the fact that we have more than he requires. But I defy him to 
show a single article contained in the confession, which he read from 
the Methodist Discipline, that is unscriptural, or that contravenes 
any law of God. There is nothing contained in it contrary to the 
teaching of God's Word. Those who do not belong to our Church, 
have no right to object to any rules of polity which we may adopt. 
When I enter the house of another man I am willing to conform to 
the rules of his house, and I expect the same thing of every man 
who enters my house. We have n right to adopt any rules we 
choose which do not contravene the law of God. 

He attempted to prove that the primitive practice of the Church 
was to immerse. That is something he has not proved. That is a 
disputed point. It is begging the question to assume the very point 
in dispute. He quotes from Pedobaptist writers to prove that the 
primitive practice of the Church was immersion. Has he told you 
what a Pedobaptist is ? A great many persons think Pedobapti>ts 
are all opposed to immersion. A Pedobaptist is one who believes 
that infant baptism is divinely authorized. Dr. Wall was a Pedo- 
baptist, but he was also an immersionist. So was Mosheira an im- 
mersionist. All Pedobaptists are not affusioni^ts. Some of them are 
just as strong immersionists as my brother dare be; and when he 
quotes those whom I have mentioned, he is quoting immersionists, 
and not affusionists. A man is not necessarily an affusionist, be- 
cause he is a Pedobaptist. 

You have been told, during this discussion, that many persons 
who were baptized by affusion, become dissatisfied with their bap- 
tism in the hour of death, and are sorry they were not immersed. 
I can find just as many persons, who, in the hour of death, deplore the 
fact that they had not sought and obtained an evidence of their ac- 
ceptance with God, other than that of their baptism, as he can find 
who are dissatisfied with affusion. There is present in this house a 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 283 

lady of intelligence, who was immersed in this vicinity, by a Method- 
ist minister, who is, to-day, as ardent an affusionist as any one pres- 
ent. I can convert as many to affusion as he can to immersion. We 
immerse hundreds and thousands in our Church — just because they 
have a right to choose for themselves — who give up their exclusive 
modal idea of baptism, and embrace that which is more charitable. 
But what sort of an argument does he make here ? We will put it 
in the form of a syllogism. The primitive practice of the Church 
was immersion. Pedo baptists admit that it was immersion. The 
" Christian Church " practices immersion ; therefore, it was instituted 
on the day of Pentecost. We practice immersion, therefore the 
Methodist Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost. We ai*3 
just as much the Church of God as they, since we never admit any 
one into the Methodist Church until he has confessed the Son of 
God and been baptized. If the good confession, and the primitive 
mode of baptism, which, my friend says, was immersion, establishes 
the fact that the Chuch was instituted on the day of Pentecost, then 
the Methodist Episcopal Church South was instituted on the day 
of Pentecost, as well as his Church. We claim to be Christians, 
although we have not assumed the name " Christian," in an ex- 
clusive sense. I will now undertake to show that in no scriptural 
sense is the brother's Church the Church that was instituted on the 
day of Pentecost. The word " ecclesia," rendered church, comes 
from the word ekkaleo, to summon forth, and means a popular assem- 
bly. In the 19th chapter of Acts, the word is three times rendered 
assembly. " It shall be determined in a lawful assembly." "And 
he dismissed the assembly." In New Testament usage, it always 
means an assembly, a congregation, or body. The apostles some- 
times use it in a general sense, as when they say, " Christ is the head 
of the Church." " The Church is subject unto Christ." " Christ 
loved the Church, and gave himself for it." In these passages, it 
denotes the entire body of Christians or believers. Can his Church 
be the Church of God in that sense ? 

With reference to this Church of which the Apostle speaks, it is 
said Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it; yet my friend 
contends that the Church — his Church — was not instituted until about 
fifty days after Christ died ; that is, on the day of Pentecost. Paul 
says: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, 
and gave himself for it." I told you, since this discussion commenced, 
that, if that text teaches any thing, it teaches that men are to love 
their wives before they have wives, if my friend's theory of the in- 
stitution of the Church be true. The apostles sometimes employ the 
word church to designate an association of Christian believers in a par- 
ticular place; as, for instance, "The Church which is in thy house." 
Here we have a Church in a man's family, and composed of his houre- 
hold. Again : " The Church of the Laodiceans ; " " The Church which 
was at Jerusalem." I defy him to prove that the word is used in any 



284 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

other senses than these in the New Testament. I will repeat what I 
have said: The term is sometimes employed to designate the Chris- 
tian body in a certain place ; as " The Church of the Laodiceans ; " 
"The Church which was at Jerusalem." In other. places it refers 
to the entire Christian body; as when we read: "Christ loved the 
Church, and gave himself for it." These are the only scriptural 
usages of the word ecclesia. In which of these senses was my broth- 
er's Church instituted on the day of Pentecost? Whenever an apos- 
tle went to a Gentile city, he preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 
The people believed on him, and were saved. The rite of baptism 
was then administered to them, when they became, in all regards, a 
Church of God. And when the great Apostle to the Gentiles speaks 
of them, he calls them churches; as, the "Church at Antioch," the 
" Church at Ephesus," etc. If the term as used in the New Testa- 
ment has any other sense than those we have given, I call on the 
brother to prove that fact. If he can not, I want him to show in 
which one of these senses his Church is the one established on the day 
of Pentecost. Does he mean in the sense of being the entire body of 
Christian believers living at that time, or just the body of believers 
that was found there in Jerusalem on the clay of Pentecost ? In which 
of these senses was his Church instituted on the day of Pentecost ? 

I will give you my understanding of the term, and, if it is unscrip- 
tural, let the gentleman show that it is. Wherever a number of per- 
sons come together who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, 
and worship him in spirit and in truth, and receive the sacraments 
of our holy religion — baptism and the Lord's Supper — they are a 
church, and a scriptural church, and the name that they assume, 
whether Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Christian, or any thing else, 
has nothing at all to do with it. We want no exclusive ideas on this 
subject. My good brother speaks of a church in the New Testament 
sense of that term, but, whenever a man attempts to prove that his 
Church is a Heaven-appointed organization, with positive laws and legal 
enactments, up comes the exclusive idea that characterizes Romanism, 
and he is bound to take the position that he alone has a church organ- 
ization, and all outside of it are heretics, and on the road to ruin. 

Here I take the position that the Roman Catholic Church is more 
consistent than my brother's Church, because they contend that Ave 
are heretics because we are not in their organization, and consign us 
to death; and he contends that we are out of the kingdom, and, con- 
sequently, heretics, because we have not fallen in with his exclusive, 
fallible idea of church organization ; and yet he allows us to get to 
heaven, or, perhaps, only some of us, for I have examined the sub- 
ject, and know better. Perhaps, like Mr. Campbell, he puts us along 
with idiots and insane persons, and hands us over to a merciful God. 
I do not wish to hear the brother inveigh against Romanism again. 
His exclusive idea, that his Church alone is the Church of God spoken 
of in the New Testament, anathematizes all other denominations as 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST REPLY. 285 

completely as any bull that ever came forth from the Vatican. "We 
are all churches of God, if we worship God in spirit and in truth, 
and receive Christ as our Savior, and partake of the sacraments of 
our holy religion. 

Jesu.s Christ is the social and fraternal element in the hearts and 
consciences of men, and brings them together in social and fraternal 
relations, and they then adopt rules and plans for the spread and 
promulgation of religion, and for the conversion of the world. That 
is just the way in which churches grow up. God does not give a 
church positive laws. Christian bodies are the legitimate fruits — 
the necessary results — of this principle of religion in the hearts and 
consciences of the people. That is the New Testament idea of a 
church, and I am just as much a member of a church as my brother 
is. If he believes that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek 
him, and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and receives the sacra- 
ment of initiation, which is baptism, then he is just as much a mem- 
ber of the Church of God as I am; and these distinctions, and rules 
of polity, and family names, have nothing at all to do with the great 
principles of our holy religion. 

I can, conscientiously and consistently, having this idea of a church, 
which I believe to be scriptural, take every religious man by the hand, 
and call him brother. Brother Brooks told me, yesterday, that I was 
out of the kingdom ; and I suppose that is the reason why he does 
not call me brother Fitch. I believe that he is in a church, and a 
Church of God, whether he is in my Church or not. I do not know 
whether or not he has been baptized with the Holy Ghost. I claim 
to be just as much in the Church of God as he can possibly be, be- 
cause I have the religion of the Bible; and I have partaken of the 
sacraments of religion, and our doctrines are all based upon the 
Bible. 

(Time Expired.) 



283 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

A Baptist brother in the house is very anxious that brother 
Fitch will tell him where the Baptist Church had its origin. We 
leave that, of course, with Mr. Fitch and him. 

My friend labors under a little misapprehension as to the work 
before him on this occasion. \\ T e gave him an opportunity to dis- 
cuss the question of Church identity, all day on Monday last. 
With that discussion w 7 e are perfectly satisfied ; and if he sees fit to 
occupy his time in still advancing arguments in opposition to the 
proposition we affirmed on that occasion, he may do so ad libitum. 
I am not afraid that the truth in that proposition will suffer from 
his arguments made then or now, and he is welcome "to fight it out 
on that line" as long as he pleases, yea, ail the season, if he likes. 

My friend claims that ours (and I use the terms "ours" and 
"my" in a conventional sense to-day) is not the Church which was 
established on Pentecost; that it is not the Apostolic Church, 
because, he says, we are not identically the same church. Now, 
while a single point of similarity does not prove that two things are 
one and the same, or even two or three points, yet, when in all re- 
spects they agree, and when in every particular the characteristics of 
each arc- the same, then the case is clearly made out. The Savior 
(to illustrate what I mean) was born in Bethlehem ; but many 
others were born in Bethlehem. He was born in Judea; but many 
others were born in Judea. He was of the tribe of Judah ; but 
many others were of the tribe of Judah. He suffered death upon 
the cross; but many others suffered death upon the cross. The 
Savior was entombed; but many others were entombed. Indeed, 
there is scarcely an incident in his whole life, from the cradle to the 
grave, that some man has not experienced; and in that particular, 
he resembles the Savior; but, when all these facts are brought to- 
gether, truly they identify the son of Mary as the Son of God. We 
do not identify the Savior by one single fact in his history, but by 
all the facts in his history taken together. So, we do not identify 
the Church of Christ by its name simply, but in that all the character- 
istics of the primitive or apostolic Church — which, my friend will 
confers, was the Church of the living God — are fulfilled in the his- 
tory and characterics of the Church with which I stand identified. 

If then, in all these particulars, our church is like that, it is the 
Church of Christ. 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS. 287 

The phrase " Church of Christ " in the singular does not occur in the 
Bible, but "churches of Christ" does. But we base the fact that 
it is Christ's Church, simply upon the Savior's own words: "Upon 
this rock I will build my Church." It is, then, the Church of Christ. 
Upon the Melhodist Discipline John Wesley built his church ; then 
it is the church of Wesley. That is exactly the difference between 
my friend and myself upon this occasion. This is Christ's Church, 
because Christ built it, and said, " It is my Church." That ends the 
question. 

My friend has told us that it was formerly called the Church of 
God. That is true ; but it has never been called the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South. That is the difficulty. He would be 
greatly rejoiced if he could just find that expression in the Bible. 
It is called the Church of God, or they are called the churches of 
Christ, not Methodist Episcopal Church South. 

Mr. Fitch has discovered some of my people at last, away back 
in the days of the apostles. This is a candid and full admission, 
and we thank him for it. 

He says that "the twelve disciples that Paul found at Ephesus, 
were members of my Church; and Paul and Silas, some Methodist 
preachers, came alone, and laying their hands on them, gave them 
the Holy Spirit and baptized them." I am sorry to have to correct my 
friend again. He can not quote correctly the word of God. They 
baptized them, and then laid their hands on them, that they might 
receive the Holy Spirit. Besides, these men were converted just as 
we are converted. They believed and were baptized, and then 
received the Holy Spirit. But this is not the method of Methodist 
preachers now. Again, you never hear of modern Methodist preach- 
ers rebaptizing any body. Any kind of baptism will do them. Now, 
the truth is, these men were like my friend ; they believed, and were 
good men, but, as I said of him yesterday, they were not in the king- 
dom; hence, they immersed them in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
Now, if these old Methodist preachers were here, they would say to 
brother Fitch, "You must be baptized in the name of Jesus, and 
you, to.), shall enter the kingdom and receive the Holy Spirit." 

The Savior said, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." My friend has 
never been born of water. To be born of water, a man must be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and this Methodist preacher 
baptized them in the name of Jesus Christ, to bring them into the 
kingdom of God; yet he falls out with me for standing in the steps 
of this old Methodist preacher. I will have to send him back to 
Paul. Besides, this old Methodist preacher at Ephesus was different 
from the Methodist preachers of our day, in this : our Methodist 
preachers teach that we must receive the Holy Spirit before we 
believe. This Methodist preacher asked a question that never fell 
from the lips of a modern Methodist preacher: " Have you received 



288 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

the Holy Spirit since you believed?" My friend would ask, " Have 
you received the Holy Spirit, that you might believe?" Now, then, 
according to my friend's theory, a man ranst receive the Holy Spirit 
in order to believe. But this old Methodist preacher asked, " Have 
you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" There was 
some difference between the customs of that day and this, and tho-e 
oid Methodist preachers were willing to be guided, wholly and un- 
equivocally, by the word of God and the Spirit. My friend is not 
satisiied with the word of God. He must make a little book, and 
be guided by that, instead of the Scriptures, and that is why he gets 
into these troubles. 

The gentleman's remarks on the vine and its branches were a 
little peculiar. As you may not have discovered his sophistry, I 
direct your attention to the matter again. You will readily see the 
difference between two or ten men being branches of the vine, and 
two separate organizations differing from each otl>er and contending 
against each other being branches of the vine. Now, the difference 
is just as wide as is the difference between heaven and earth. Indi- 
viduals, at the start, were branches; but these distinct party organi- 
zations are just what Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians condemns. 
I will give you an illustration : 

In the town of Winchester there are four organizations calling 
themselves Churches of God; all here have one interest, just as 
had the Christians at Corinth. Now, Paul condemned them because 
they were thus divided, and were making different names and parties. 
For the same reason, I condemn this same thing in Winchester to- 
day, and declare, with Paul, that there is carnality here, or it would 
not be. No, if we were willing to be guided by the word of God, 
and were one, as Christ would have us be, then we would convert 
every one in this community iu a very little while. 

Mr. Fitch claims that the Methodist Church has unity, but does 
not claim for it uniformity. Now, the gentleman has the thing 
exactly reversed. If he is faithful to comply with their Discipline, 
there will be uniformity; and if they do not have uniformity it is 
because the preachers are recreant, for they agreed to enforce that 
Discipline, and if they do, they will have perfect uniformity. But, 
on the other hand, for them to talk about unity, is absurd. Every 
body knows the Methodist Church is divided, and that, too, over 
politics. That is worse than all. Just think of the Church of God 
divided over politics! More than all that, they are still in that 
condition; Down in Tennessee the Northern Methodists have taken 
possession of the churches of my brother, and in that condition they 
are fighting and quarreling over their meeting-houses! And yet he 
tells us there is unity among them! Not one particle of unity 
there. What folly to talk about unity in a Church that is thus 
divided! Just read their papers published in Nashville and Balti- 
more ; read them, and you will see whether unity exists or not. If 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS. 289 

the gentleman wants any thing on this subject, I will read him 
something of interest before night. 

My friend informs me that our preachers say that others may be 
right, or may be wrong, but that they themselves are right, and 
can not be wrong. Now, this statement of my friend misrepresents 
the facts in the case. Dr. Hopson is the author of this discourse, 
to which he alludes, and the Doctor states the proposition thus : 
"To speak illogically, you may be right, or you may be wrong; 
but we are right, and can not be wrong." The Doctor illustrates it 
in this way : We practice immersion. You will all concede that 
is right; a man who is immersed is certainly baptized. Well, 
then, they may be right when they sprinkle a man, or they may be 
wrong. If they are right, we certainly are right, according to their 
own admission. The world does not object to what we teach, but 
what we do not teach. We practice immersion; they say we are 
right, but object because we do not practice sprinkling and pouring. 
We teach that the Spirit operates in conversion, through the truth. 
They agree, but object because we do not believe in a direct influ- 
ence of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man. They think, 
with us, that men are depraved, but object because we do not think 
they are totally depraved. They agree, with us, that faith comes 
by hearing the word of God, but object because we will not concede 
that there is another faith which is the direct gift of God. Thus, 
they believe all we teach, but it is what we do not teach that 
troubles them. But, for these things there is no Scripture, and, 
since we are guided alone by the Bible, they must excuse us. 

Our standard is infallibly right. We may be imperfect in our 
practice, but as a people we simply take the Bible, and what the 
Bible says and teaches, and try to live up to it. My friend's 
standard is not infallible, because he takes a creed made by men. 
It is in this sense that we claim to be infallible, not in our practice 
and lives. The Bible — the Bible alone — is infallible ; we take no 
other creed. 

Again: His idea of founding a Church is right, if he leaves that 
Church in the condition in which the apostles left it. I believe 
with him, that the way to found a Church is to go and preach the 
Gospel, and organize the people into a Church. But here my friend 
fails, when he leaves them without the Bible as the only infallible 
standard, and leaves them with that which is only founded upon 
"the experience of years, and observations upon ancient and mod- 
ern churches." In other words, instead of leaving them to be 
guided by the word of God alone; instead of organizing them, and 
calling them the Church of Christ, and telling them they must call 
themselves christians, or disciples of Jesus Christ, he leaves them 
with a human creed, and a human name. That is just exactly what 
the gentleman lacks in making it the Church of Christ. 

But the confession, he says, is in his Discipline. Now, that Dis- 
25 . 



290 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

cipline expresses faith in Christ as the Son of the Living God ; but 
I most emphatically deny that it is the practice of my friend to ask 
men: "Do you believe with all your heart that Jesus of Nazareth 
is the Christ, the Son of the Living God?" And yet the Savior 
said: "Upon this rock I will build my Church." Now, do you not 
see that this truth, taken away from the earth, leaves not a Christian 
behind? Take away the proposition that Mahomet is the Prophet 
of God, and you take away Mahometanism from earth. Obliter- 
ate the proposition that Joe Smith was the Prophet of God, and 
you obliterate Mormonism. Take away the Methodist Discipline, 
and you take away Methodism. Leave this very distinctive truth — 
the confession — and you leave Christians still in the world. Take 
away the truth that he is the Christ, the Son of God, and you do 
not leave a Christian on the face of the earth. This truth, then, 
makes Christians. Methodism makes Methodists. Are there Chris- 
tians in the gentleman's Church? What makes them ? The truth 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. What makes 
them Methodists? Methodism! That is just what I object to. It 
can not result in good or gain for him, and must result in great harm 
to the world. 

Christ has established a Church, and yet my friend claims the 
right to lay down laws of admission into that Church, and coolly 
says to the rest of the world : " If you do not choose to comply with 
these conditions, just stay out." Think of that for a moment! The 
King Eternal has established a Church in the earth, and yet Mr. 
Fitch tells us, that men have the right to lay down laws by which 
people shall come into the kingdom ; but, if they do not see fit to 
obey them, they may stay out! The great God of heaven has es- 
tablished his Church on earth, and his kingdom in the world; and 
has given laws, and appointed officers in it, and established it with 
every member necessary to its edification ; and yet, at the same time, 
Mr. Fitch claims the right to legislate, and say how men shall come 
into that kingdom. 

Yesterday he claimed that all Pedobaptists were sprinklers. Do 
you remember how he came at us with those almanac statistics t and 
how he left only a few thousand immersionists in the world, and 
claimed all the rest as Pedobaptists and sprinklers ? Yet, to-day, he 
tells us these Pedobaptists are all immersionists. He makes state- 
ments one day to prove one proposition, that overturn the statements 
he makes to prove another proposition the next day. Yesterday, 
they were all sprinklers. To-day, when I quote Dr. Wall, and 
others, against him, he says they are all immersionists. I am glad 
to see the gentleman open his eyes to the fact that his almanac was 
not right, after all. 

Again: "Christ," he says, "loved the Church as the husband the 
wife, and gave himself for it." — Eph. v: 25. The gentleman has 
repeatedly thrust this passage at us, with the assertion that Christ 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND ADDRESS. 291 

must have given himself and died for a church not in existence, if 
our position be true; and he emphasizes the point. Well, I won- 
der if he died for the Methodist Church, which has been in existence 
only a hundred years. Christ could not die for a church before it 
was in existence, he tells us. Well, then, he did not die for the 
Methodist Church. He is harder on the Methodists than I am; for 
he makes it appear that Christ never died for his Church, and sends 
them all to perdition. He ought to have charity at home before 
he goes abroad to preach charity. According to this logic, Christ 
never died for our sins. If he could not give himself for a church 
that was not in existence, he could not give himself for men not in 
existence ! This is logic ! Accept it as such, if you please. 

But he says the first members of our Church in this country 
were excluded from the Baptist Church. We were not excluded 
from the Baptist Church. We quietly agreed to separate and go. 
The North District Association of Baptists were to have met at 
Spencer church, Montgomery County, in 1829. The Baptist wing 
held a preliminary meeting at Lulbegrud, in the spring of '29, and 
refused to meet the Association at Spencer Creek, but, withdrawing, 
met in August, at Goshen, in this county. The gentleman had 
better post himself correctly before he talks so much upon these 
questions. 

He objects to my calling their preachers circuit riders. This is 
precisely the name he gives them himself. When he acknowledges 
the name, he should not object to others calling him by the same. 
I never call a man by a nickname that is offensive to him, and if 
the gentleman will say the name is offensive, I w T ill not repe t it. 
But the gentleman calls himself, and all others, sects, and objects 
to my calling my Church the Church of Christ. Indeed, he quoted 
some Scripture proof for calling them sects, but, as usual, did not 
quote it aright. Paul did not call the Church a sect, but the unbe- 
lieving Jews said to him, "We desire to hear of thee, for as con- 
cerning this sect it is every-where spoken against." Paul always 
condemned sects and schisms in the Church. 

My friend boasts of his large charity on this occasion. Great 
and wonderful charity! In the overwhelming magnanimity of his 
compassion, he throws himself back, and gesticulates in such a man- 
ner as to surprise and please his brethren, for he makes them laugh 
every time they see his movements. It is not the sharpness of any 
thing he says, but his peculiar look when he says it, that elicits their 
merriment. If they expect to gain this question by laughing at his 
whimsical looks, they will be simply mistaken. 

But my friend's large charity is truly wonderful. If I want to 
come into my friend's Church, I may come, preaching that immer- 
sion is baptism ! But, if I were a preacher in that Church to-day, 
proclaiming that immersion is baptism, but sprinkling or pouring is 
not, how long would he allow me to stay? Suppose one of these 



292 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Calvinist brethren was to preach Calvinism, how long would he 
stay there? His philanthropy is just broad enough to include his 
own little band of Southern Episcopal Methodists, and reject all 
others. They would not permit the Calvinist, or any of my breth- 
ren, to live with them and condemn their Arminianism. With all 
his boasting, there is not a more restricted and uncharitable people 
on earth. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 293 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

Brother Brooks says that the audience occasionally laugh at 
me, not because I really say any thing sharp, but he supposes that 
they laugh because they think I look sharp. The trouble with him 
is, that he neither says any thing sharp, nor looks sharp. 

He came here this morning to prove, by the word of God, that 
a Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost, by the apostles 
of Jesus Christ, and that the Church known at this day as the 
"Disciples," or "the Christian Church," is that Church. He pre- 
sented a few passages of Scripture, and I followed the train of his 
argument, and showed you that those passages proved nothing, 
either pro or con, so far as this question is concerned. 

The speech which he has just made was nothing more than a 
review of the speech that I made this morning, and he has, there- 
fore, added no argument to that which he produced (if he produced 
any) this morning, to maintain his proposition. Being in the neg- 
ative, then, you see clearly that I have nothing to do, unless I choose 
to review his speech just closed. 

He says that we are not discussing the unity and perpetuity of 
the Church to-day; but he is not to drive me from my purpose in 
this way, for he knows very well that, according to the principles 
of reasoning and logic, you can disprove a proposition negatively, 
and the work will be legitimate. If I can prove the converse of 
what he has attempted to establish, I disprove the proposition. If 
I prove that no Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost, and 
if I prove the unity and perpetuity of the Jewish- Church, then I 
disprove his position by proving the converse of what he affirms, 
and it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the unity and perpetuity of 
the Church to-day. 

I venture to assert that any argument that he might offer, or that 
he will offer, to prove that his Church was instituted on the day of 
Pentecost, the very same argument will prove that the Methodist 
Church, and the Baptist Church, and every other church in the laud, 
was instituted on that day. If a good confession ; if immersion ; if 
the main features of our holy religion as taught, believed, and prac- 
ticed by any one of the churches, prove that Church to have been 
instituted on the day of Pentecost, in the sense for which the brother 
contends, then ours was instituted at that time. He has admitted 
that little discrepancies will not invalidate the argument, and it is not, 



294 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

therefore, necessary to establish the identity of every thing. If there 
is only a similarity in most of the features, then the proposition is 
proved. Whenever, then, he proves the main points of his proposi- 
tion, he carries us all back with him, because every Protestant Church 
in this land holds, teaches, and practices the great essential princi- 
ples of the religion of the Bible. So, if he is doing any thing for 
himself, he is doing a good work for the rest of us. He told you 
about a man walking along the streets of Ephesus, or some other 
Oriental city, and inquiring for a Christian church. I never heard 
such a weak and silly argument before, and I do not deem it worthy 
of notice. I will promise him one thing : if he will find the expres- 
sion "Christian Church of God" in the New Testament, I will also 
find "Methodist Episcopal Church of God" there. If he can find 
"Christian Church of God," just in those words, I will pledge my- 
self to find the words, "Methodist Episcopal Church of God," in the 
New Testament. He has no more a "Thus saith the Lord" for his 
name than we have. 

My friend tells you that those persons whom I represented, this 
morning, as members of his Church, were converted just as he wants 
me to be converted. He desires to know if I ever asked any mem- 
ber of the Methodist Church if he had received the Holy Ghost since 
he believed. I do not hesitate to say that I have asked scores of men 
such a question substantially. AVe believe, teach, and know it to 
be true, that the Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask 
him. ' And that question, in substance, is often asked. But he says 
that we present the question in this manner: Have you received the 
Holy Ghost, that you might believe ? 

I want to read an extract from Alexander Campbell, to show that 
the worthy gentlemen do not agree with each other. Mr. Campbell, 
in his Christian Baptist, page 353, says : 

"Saving faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit; and 
that no man can believe to the saving of his soul but by the Holy 
Spirit." 

Did we ever teach any thing stronger than that ? That is exactly 
what we teach on this subject. 

Again: In his Millennial Harbinger, he says: "I would not, 
sir, value, at the price of a single mill, the religion of any man, as 
respects the grand affair of eternal life, whose religion is not begun, 
carried on, and completed by the personal agency of the Holy 
Spirit." 

How is this done? Through the instrumentality of the written 
word, as is so commonly advocated by the brethren of this Church? 
No, sir; by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit. Mr. Camp- 
bell, then, is against the brother in this regard ; for he says that no 
man believes with his heart unto salvation, without the assistance of 
the Holy Spirit. The brother says I am excluded from the king- 
dom because I have never been baptized. 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 295 

I would like to know how he became so wise. He told you, yes- 
terday, that I was not baptized at a river. He certainly knoivs a 
great deal. He makes wonderful discoveries. He discovered a 
Methodist preacher in the family of Lydia ; and he discovered a 
thing that I never revealed to any one, namely, that I was not bap- 
tized at a river ; and to-day he has discovered that I have not been 
baptized at all. He knows nothing about it. He is talking about 
something in regard to which he has no information. 

The brother says that there are four churches in this town, and he 
deplores that state of things. Well, why does he not join the Meth- 
odist Church? We believe in a good confession, and we never bap- 
tize persons without asking them, in substance, whether they believe 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Our confession begins in this 
way : " I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven 
and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, our Lord." 

There is a good confession of faith. If persons want to be im- 
mersed, we will immerse them, and all he contends for is a good con- 
fession, and immersion. If he deplores the want of harmony and 
unity in the churches of this town, why not come with his congre- 
gation and join the Methodist Church? We will receive them all, 
and then preach to them the personal agency of the Holy Spirit in 
conversion and regeneration, and the love of God shed abroad in 
the hearts of his people by the Holy Ghost given unto them. 

But I can not go to his Church. I believe that God has made it 
my duty to bring my children into the Church with myself, and he 
will not allow me to bring them into his Church. I can not join 
his Church without sacrificing a principle which I believe to be right. 
He can come into the Methodist Church without sacrificing any 
principle, he being judge, that is taught in the word of God. Then, 
in the name of reason, if he deplores the separation of the churches, 
and sectarianism, which he thinks militates against the progress of 
the Redeemer's kingdom, why does he not come into our Church? 
Every thing is found in our Church that is found in his, and many 
things, not in his, which might contribute to his edification and 
profit. 

I would like to know whether there are not several Christian 
churches in the city of Cincinnati. I believe there are four of 
them in that city. Why do they not all unite in one congregation, 
as he advises us to do here? This is no argument at all. This 
proves nothing about his Church having been instituted on the day 
of Pentecost. 

Then I would like to know if none of his churches have been 
troubled with politics ? I would inquire if they have not had trouble 
here in this town? Have they not proscribed men? Have they 
not refused, many of them, to hear certain men preach, because of 
their politics? The only thing upon which they are agreed is im- 
mersion. There is a controversy raging in the columns of the 



296 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Apostolic Times now, and there is no more unity in the bosom of 
his Church than there is in any other Protestant Church. 

But he says that they are right, especially in this thing of baptism, 
because every body says so. I will make an argument very much like 
the arguments which he advances. Protestants all admit that a 
man may be saved who is a member of the Catholic Church, if he 
lives conformably to the light and teaching he receives upon the 
subject of religion. They admit that a member of that church may 
be a Christian; but a genuine, ardent Catholic will not admit that a 
man not a Romanist, is a Christian, or will be saved. And he will 
contend that all outside of the Romish Church are heretics. Now, 
all Protestants agree that a man may be saved in the Romish 
Church, but Catholics do not admit that persons can be saved in 
the Protestant Churches. If then the admission of all persons that 
immersion is baptism, constitutes it alone baptism, the admission 
of all Christians that a man may be saved in the Romish Church, 
makes the Romish Church alone the Church of God. Mr. B. admits 
that my theory of the founding of a church is right. I am glad 
that he admits so much. Now, if he will sit down and reflect upon 
the subject with calmness and deliberation, he will find that he can 
not identify the persons who constitute the Church of to-day with 
those who constituted the Church at any former period. I admit 
that the churches of to-day have the same Bible and the same re- 
ligion of the primitive Church, and here is wherein the unity and 
perpetuity of the Church consists, and not in its individual member- 
ship. It requires individual membership to make a Church, or a 
body of believers, but the Church of one period is not the Church 
of any other period, so far as its membership is concerned. The 
Methodist Church of to-day is not the identical Church that it was 
fifty years ago, in this regard. 

If he admits that my idea of the founding of a Church is right, 
he should show that his Church is that which was instituted on 
the day of Pentecost. If he had confined himself to saying that 
they hold the same doctrines, and that they preach and teach the 
same principles of religion, then there might be some show of truth 
on his side. But the way in which the proposition is stated, de- 
prives it entirely of all feasibility, and makes it nothing but an 
absurdity. 

He tells us that we founded the Church right, but we have not 
the right sort of system in it, for, instead of giving our members 
the Bible, we give them the Discipline. And then he argues 
against the Discipline and against creeds. This reminds me of the 
reasoning of the Mahometan general when the city of Alexandria 
was taken. The officer in immediate command, by whom the city 
was taken, wrote to him, as his superior in authority, and asked what 
disposition he should make of the celebrated library which he found 
there. He replied, if the books which it contained agreed with the 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 297 

Koran they were useless, and ought not to be preserved ; and if they 
disagreed with the Koran they were pernicious, and ought to be 
destroyed. The brother's objections to our Discipline are just about 
as sensible as that. They apply with equal force to every sermon, 
every tract, and every religious and theological work that has ever 
been written. If Mr. Campbell's "Christian System" agrees with 
the Bible, it is useless, and no Christian man need have it in his 
library ; if it does not agree -with the Scriptures, then it is pernic- 
ious, and should be destroyed. 

We claim that our Discipline agrees with the Bible, just as all 
other denominations claim that their creeds agree with the Bible. 
The difference is only a difference of judgment. If Mr. B. is going 
to banish from the world every thing that agrees with the Bible, he 
will have to stop preaching, for if his sermons agree with the Bible 
they are useless and unnecessary; and, upon- the other hand, if they 
disagree with the Bible, they are pernicious, and ought to be stopped. 
On the same principle Sunday-school books and tracts, which are 
now scattered broadcast over the land, if they agree with the 
Bible, are useless, and ought to be burned, according to my friend's 
theory, and if they disagree with it, they are pernicious, and ought 
to be destroyed. This is the sum and substance of the argument 
which he makes against our Discipline, and against creeds. 

He tells us if we remove the characteristics of Methodism, Chris- 
tianity is left. I wish just to say to him, if he excludes every thing 
from the Bible that is not necessary to be believed and practiced in 
order to salvation, he will not have much of the New Testament 
left. It is not necessary for me to believe that Peter preached at the 
house of Cornelius in order to my salvation, therefore it is not a part 
of the Gospel, according to my friend. It is not necessary to believe 
that Paul was imprisoned at Philippi, in order to be saved, therefore 
it is not a part of the Gospel, and need not be preserved. And so 
I might go on and exclude every thing not absolutely indispensable, 
and necessary to salvation, and I should reduce the New Testament 
to a very few passages. Any sort of reasoning of this kind is fal- 
lacious. 

Dr. Wall and those other persons whom I mentioned are not living 
at present, but the statistics have reference to the present time. I 
am willing to hand over that Ecclesiastical Almanac to any competent 
men and abide by their decision. If they say, after a careful ex- 
amination of the matter, that I am wrong, I will yield the point. 

The brother tells you that his Church was not first organized of 
members expelled from the Baptist Church. I will read what Mr. 
Campbell says on this subject, and we shall find that the honorable 
gentlemen differ again. Mr. Campbell says, in the Millennial Har- 
binger, vol. 1, p. 149: 

" In no instance has a majority in any of our churches ever cast 
out a minority of Baptists for any difference of opinion ; but how 



298 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

often their majorities have cast out our minorities during the last 
ten years it would pain me to record." 

I wish to read a few extracts from this system which professes to 
have begun at Pentecost, and which is presented to us as a beautiful 
and harmonious system, in perfect accordance with the Scriptures. 
Mr. Campbell teaches that salvation is alone to be obtained in " his 
restored kingdom." 

In the Mill. Harbinger, vol. 5, p. 251„ he says: " I do, indeed, con- 
tend for the restoration of the original Gospel and order of things, 
and do think that no sect in Christendom has the one or the other." 
In his Christ Baptist, Mr. C. says: "Knowing that the efficacy of 
his blood is to be communicated to our consciences in the very way 
which God is pleased to appoint, we stagger not at the promise of 
God, but nee to the sacred ordinance which brings the blood of Jesus 
in contact with our consciences. Without knowing and believing, 
tliis immersion is as empty as a blasted nut. The shell is there, but 
the kernel is wanting." 

Every man who is received from the Baptist Church, by my brother 
into his Church, unless he believes that baptism is for the remission 
of sins, is still unpardoned, because his immersion was as empty as a 
''blasted nut." Our Baptist friends do not baptize a person until he 
is converted and pardoned; they do not, therefore, baptize for the 
remission of sins; but Mr. B. will contend that he is not pardoned 
until baptized; and Mr. Campbell declares that, unless he knows and 
believes that baptism is for the remission of sins, his immersion is as 
empty as a " blasted nut." The shell is there, but the kernel is 
wanting. So, then, the man, as a Baptist, is pardoned, but as a 
Christian, he is unpardoned. Again, he teaches that the waters of 
baptism literally wash away sins. 

In the Mill. Harbinger, Extra, No. 1, p. 40, he says: "If blood 
can whiten or cleanse garments, certainly water can wash away sins. 
There is, then, a transferring of the efficacy of blood to water, and a 
transferring of the efficacy of water to blood. This is a plain solu- 
tion of the whole matter. God has transferred, in some way, the 
whitening efficacy or cleansing power of water to blood, and the 
absolving or pardoning power of blood to water. God has opened 
a fountain for sin — for moral pollution. He has given it an exten- 
sion far and wide as sin has spread — far and w T ide as water flows." 
Again, he represents the Gospel as containing one command to be 
obeyed, and that is — baptism. In the Mill. Har., Extra, No. 1, p. 12, 
he affirms "That the Gospel has in it a command, and, as such, must 
be obeyed." 

That is the idea of the brother. The Gospel contains one great 
command, and that is " to be baptized." How long does it take to 
baptize a person ? One minute — for, according to a statement of his, 
he can baptize one a minute, all day long. Then a man obeys the 
Gospel in one minute. According to him, obedience is rendered to 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND REPLY. 299 

the Gospel in that length of time when the man submits himself to 
the authority of Christ. What a ridiculous idea is this. Did any 
of the apostles ever teach that the Gospel had but one command, 
and that was, "to be baptized, or immersed, into the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ? " 

Mr. Campbell further teaches, that immersion is the act of turn- 
ing to God. Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, nor resolving 
to be better, will ever convert a man to God. Immersion alone is 
the act of turning to God. I will read again from the same work, 
No. 1, page 35. I wish to give you a fair exhibition of the teachings 
to the brother's Church, that you may compare them with the word 
of God, and see whether those teachings are the teachings of the 
word of God. He says: "Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, 
repenting, sorrowing, resolving, nor waiting to. be better, was the 
converting act; irnmerdon alone was that act of turning to God." 

"Thus you will see that the pardon of sins depends upon immersion ; 
justification depends upon immersion, sanctification depends upon 
immersion, reconciliation to God depends upon immersion, adoption 
depends upon immersion, salvation depends upon immersion, a good 
conscience depends upon immersion, a pure heart depends upon im- 
mersion, love to God depends upon immersion, saving faith depends 
upon immersion, true repentance depends upon immersion, prayer 
depends upon immersion, the reception of the Holy Spirit depends 
upon immersion, and every thing depends upon immersion." 

Alexander Campbell also teaches that water is the mother of all 
Christians. I know that is not in the Bible. I know there is no 
"Thus saith the Lord" for it, but if any one doubts that he has 
taught it, I will produce the passage. I wish to show some of the in- 
consistencies and contradictions of this system. Mr. Campbell, in 
his Mill. Harbinger, Extra, No. 1, page 30, says : " Begotten of God 
he may be, but born of God he can not be until born of water." 
Again, in Christ. Res., he says: "The Holy Spirit made the literal 
body of Jesus by its influences, and afterward filled it. But it was 
not until he was bom again, in Jordan, that the Holy Spirit, in the 
form of a dove, descended upon him." 

I almost missed one passage. It is where he speaks of his ancient 
disciples as buried with him in pools and ponds: "All his ancient 
disciples were buried with him in the water of the pools, and ponds, 
and rivers of Judea ; not, indeed, to get religion ; but because they 
had got it, and had so much reverence for the institutions of heaven 
as to submit to them with cheerfulness and joy." — Mill. Har., vol. 5, 
p. 216. 

I wonder where he finds those pools and ponds, in the New Testa- 
ment. They were not baptized "to get religion, but because they 
had got it." If they had already obtained religion, their baptism 
could not have. been for the remission of sins. 

He says, again, that Christ has commanded immersion for the 



300 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

remission of sins. Christ Res., p. 247 : " He (Christ) has commanded 
immersion for the remission of sins ; and, think you, that he will 
change his institution, because of your stubborn or intractable dis- 
positions? As well, as reasonably, might you pray for loaves from 
heaven, or manna, because Israel eat it in the desert, as to pray for 
pardon while you refuse the remission of your sins by immersion.'* 
But he contradicts this, when he says, Paul's sins were really par- 
doned when he believed. 

{Time Expired.) 



mr. brooks's third address. 301 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: * 

Mr. Fitch, may I ask you from what book you have been read- 
ing? 

Mr. Fitch — "Yes, sir; Kay's 'Text Book on Campbellism.'" 

I thought so. And now I have just a word in reference to that 
book, and all the gentleman has read from it. I am informed that 
Mr. James began to read from the same work, in his debate with 
Mr. McGarvey, but abandoned it when Mr. McGarvey exposed its 
low, libelous, and partisan character. The book is simply false to 
Mr. Campbell, and a libel upon his great name. It was gotten up 
for partisan purposes, and does its work by taking disjointed words, 
phrases, and sentences from Mr. Campbell's writings, straining them 
into improper connections, which falsify Mr. Campbell and misrep- 
resent his views, and by putting words into Mr. Campbell's mouth 
that he never used. I pronounce the thing false in its inception, 
false in what it says of Mr. Campbell, and wholly unworthy this 
occasion. The book is low, mean, and partisan in its character. 
Besides, much of what Mr. Fitch read, was the language of its au- 
thor, and not of Mr. Campbell. This community know full well 
that Mr. Campbell never taught such things. Taken in their 
connection, they would not teach what you have heard, either on 
the influence of the Spirit, or the question of baptism. It is simply 
a misrepresentation from beginning to end. Now, I would greatly 
have preferred my friend to have met us on another basis than this, 
but he must select his own weapons. 

I propose, before I answer the speech of Mr. Fitch, to call your 
attention to one or two additional arguments upon the affirmative: 

Argument seventh is based upon the polity of the primitive 
Church. I would remark, before I proceed to make this argument, 
that these characteristics, all taken together, identify the Church of 
Christ — not one of them alone, but all of them, takeu together. In 
the primitive Church, bishops, elders, and pastors were terms synony- 
mously used to represent the same class of officers. (See Acts xx : 
17, 28.) The Apostle Paul sent for the elders of the church at 
Ephesus, and when they came to him, he exhorted them to "take 
charge of the flock over the which the Holy Ghost had made them — 
JEpiseopoi — overseers, or bishops." Here he used the terms bishop 
and elder as synonymous. 

Again: Says Paul to Titus, chap, i: "For this cause left I thee 



302 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that are wanting, 
and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." He then 
proceeds to lay down the qualifications of these elders, and concludes, 
"For a bishop must be blameless." — Titus i: 5, 7. I. conclude, then, 
that "bishop," "elder," and "pastor" were used synonymously. 
Each church had a plurality of elders. At Jerusalem, the elders 
met in council with the apostles, "and Paul called for the elders 
of the ohurch at Ephesus." There was also a plurality of deacons 
in each congregation ^ In the congregation at Jerusalem, seven were 
ordained at first; besides, Paul, in his letter to the Philippians, 
addresses the saints, together with the bishops and deacons of that 
congregation. (Phil, i: 1.) 

Now, then, the polity of the Church with which I stand connected 
is the polity of that primitive Church. We have a plurality of eld- 
ers and deacons in each congregation. I speak now of the faith and 
practice of the Church. Again: the primitive Church sent out 
evangelists, as did the church at Antioch ; so we send out evangelists 
to preach the gospel. The Church of my friend does not even pre- 
tend to have the polity of the Apostolic Church. It has a chief 
officer, called the bishop— a number of them — who preside over the 
whole Methodist Church ; then there are presiding elders, who 
preside over a large district of country; besides there is one elder, 
or deacon, as the case may be, who presides over two, three or 
four churches. Again, they sometimes have an elder or deacon 
presiding over a single church. 

All these things are unscriptural, and hence without authority 
in the word of God. They have no authority for them, and my 
friend does not claim that they have. Not only in the correspond- 
ence, but in this discussion, he does not claim divine authority for 
such Church officers. My friend made an effort to show that the 
Baptist brethren were more in sympathy with him than with us. 
Now, in their organization, they are with us; they have elders, dea- 
cons, and an independent congregation ; while my friend's Church 
gives a large district of country, containing many churches, to one 
officer, whose name and work are unknown to the word of God. 

But, again, I pass on to notice the manner in which sinners 
were brought into the primitive Church. In the commission, the 
Savior said: "Go, preach the gospel to every creature." The 
apostles went to Jerusalem and preached the gospel. The people 
heard that gospel, they believed that gospel, and they cried out : 
" Men and brethren, what shall we do ? " The apostle said : " Repent 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
the remission of sins." Now, is that the practice of my friend's 
church ? He told us yesterday, indeed, that if he had been placed 
under the same circumstances, and had stood before those Jews who 
had murdered the Savior, he would have told them just what Peter 
told them. Did you mark that? He would then, under those 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 303 

circumstances, have answered the Jews just as Peter answered 
them. Peter said: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in 
the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins." In that case, 
then, baptism was for the remission of sins. Then, if it was for 
the remission of sins in that case, it has been so from that day to 
this. Has Christ made any change in the law of pardon since 
Pentecost ? The same law prevails to-day. But my friend would 
not now proceed in this way. According to his present practice, 
he would have preached to them for an hour, and then he would 
have called them up to the mourner's bench for prayer. If any 
could have " gotten through," he would have opened the doors of the 
church in order to admit them to baptism. Where was the mourn- 
er's bench on the day of Pentecost? Where does he learn that the 
apostles prayed for the wicked there, that they might be converted ? 
Where is my friend's authority for his mourner's bench ? He does 
not claim any himself, and yet he adopts it. I wanted him to 
debate this question, but he said there was no authority for the 
mourner's bench in the Scriptures, and he did not claim any. 
When I told him I was glad to see he was being converted, you 
can not conceive with what spirit he came back at me for saying 
he was abandoning " the old landmarks of Methodism." He said 
they had never claimed any scriptural authority for the practice, 
yet it has only been about ten years since his brother, Mr. Foster, 
affirmed, in debate with me, that the Scriptures authorized the 
calling of sinners to the mourner's bench, as practiced in. the 
Methodist Church. Ten years ago there was Scripture authority 
for a mourner's bench, but to-day there is none. 

I desire to show you how little the organization of my friend is 
like the primitive Church. They do not take them at once and 
baptize them and bring them into the church. My friend claims 
that we get into Christ's kingdom too soon, when, if he remembers 
the cases of Paul and the eunuch, he knows that it is possible for 
men to be converted in one single hour. I want, again, to say that 
the garbled presentation of Mr. Campbell's views upon the work 
of the Spirit, as read before you, is false from beginning to end, 
and was originated for an occasion of evil intent. What Mr. 
Campbell does say about the influence of the Spirit, when taken in 
its proper connection, I believe. 

But, now, go up with us to the city of Damascus. Paul has 
seen the Savior, believed on him ; the Savior has sent him to the 
preacher in Damascus, and he has now been fasting in sorrow and 
penitence for three days and nights, when Ananias comes to him. 
Well, when he came, how did he proceed? Did he say: "Brother 
Saul, let us kneel down and pray; " and, when he had prayed with 
him, did he tell Saul to pray on, to implore the God of heaven to 
be reconciled ; and did he tell him to " persevere, persevere, perse- 
vere?" Did he tell him any thing of that kind? Certainly not. 



304 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

What did he do ? Paul was a believing penitent, and hence was com- 
manded to " arise and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord." If I were to pray for such a man, I would 
pray as brother Wiles did in one of my friend's meetings at Poplar 
Plains. He began to pray fervently that the good Lord might send 
some Ananias to tell these poor, heart-stricken sinners what to do ; 
but the Methodist brethren were crying amen so loud that he could 
not be heard. The difficulty was, they wanted some Ananias to 
tell them what to do. They were sincere, devoted believers, and all 
they wanted was some one to tell them what to do, in order to enter 
the kingdom ; but these preachers kept them in ignorance at the 
mourner's bench. 

What authority is there for all this in the word of God? Did 
you ever hear of an inspired preacher telling such a man to believe? 
Suppose Ananias had said, "Brother Saul, believe on Jesus Christ 
as we do," he would have said, "I do believe, with all my heart, 
the Gospel of Jesus Christ." "Then you must pray God to be 
reconciled to you." "But God is reconciled to me, and I want to 
know what I am to do." Would my friend have said, with Ananias, 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord?" No; there is not one of them here who will 
say he ever spoke thus to a sinner. Now, my brother intimated, 
the other day, that if he could find sinners in just such circumstances 
as the Pentecostians were, he would answer their inquiry as Peter did. 
This is right. If a man is an infidel, tell him to believe ; if he is a 
believer, tell him to "repent, and be baptized." If he does this, he will 
do as Peter did. To the believing penitent, he will say what 
Ananias said: "Arise, aud be baptized, and wash away your sins, 
calling on the name of the Lord." But this is not the practice of 
my friend. 

I wish to notice again his remark in regard to the confes- 
sion. In the Church or institution of my friend, he can not claim 
the characteristics of which we have spoken. He tells you, "We 
have all these characteristics, and more." Now, they do not ob- 
ject to the confession, but that they do not require it, I boldly affirm. 
Dr. Adam Clark says, on this passage: "Every word here is em- 
phatic — a most concise, and yet comprehensive confession of faith. 
' The Christ, or Messiah,' points out his divinity, and shows his office ; 
'the Son,' designates his person: on this" account it is, that both 
are joined together so frequently in the new covenant." (See Notes on 
Mark xvi : 16.) Are all these fundamental facts brought out in the 
passage my friend read from his Discipline? What authority has 
he for calling upon them to answer any other question ? That is 
what we object to. What we want is the good confession, with 
God's own authority and seal. My friend need not say he has it, 
for this confession he does not require. If the Savior said : " Upon 
this rock I will build my Church," he never said he would build it 



mr. brooks's third address. 305 

upon Methodism. I said his idea of founding a church was right, 
conditionally. I put it upon the condition that he should leave it 
just as the apostles left it, and as the Bible directs, taking the Bible 
as a creed, and preaching the Gospel simply — not Methodism or 
Arminianism. 

He says there is no sense in the proposition we are debating to- 
day ; that it is an absurdity; and yet he made it. Well, now, is not 
that a cool admission ? He makes a proposition for us to debate, 
and then stands up and tells the people there is no sense in it. I 
should have had too much respect for myself to discuss an absurd 
and senseless proposition. Surely, this was a lapsus linguae on the 
part of my friend. 

He compares his creed with Mr. Campbell's speeches. If we are go- 
ing to destroy his creed because it is not the Bible, we must destroy 
Mr. Campbell's speeches, and must quit preaching. Is it possible that 
he does not see the difference? Why, my sermons are binding upon 
nobody. They are simply the truth as 1 see it in Jesus Christ. No- 
body is obliged to receive them. Mr. Campbell's writings are not 
authoritative. The Methodist Discipline absolutely governs and con- 
trols the Methodist Church, and with a vengeance. There is a vast 
difference between a sermon and a creed. It is not necessary, he says, 
to believe that Peter preached at the house of Cornelius. All I have 
to say to this is, that it is necessary for him to believe all that is in 
this book, and nothing out of it; but this he does not believe. 

He alluded again to the statement that Mr. Campbell and his 
brethren had been excluded from the Baptist Church. Now, in 
a good many localities the Baptists did retain the meeting-houses, 
and in a few isolated cases, they passed formal acts of exclusion. 
But the whole of the Mahoning Association came with Mr. C. into 
the Reformation, and the facts in regard to the North District As- 
sociation are just as I stated them. This was to have met at Spen- 
cer Creek, in 1829. The Baptist brethren met at Lulbegrud, in 
the spring, and afterward at Goshen, in this county, instead of 
Spencer Creek, thus withdrawing from us, and we are still the old 
North District Association, or the very people that originally com- 
posed that Association. 

I was about to make a remark in reference to the charity of my 
brother, as my time expired. If this question of charity is to settle 
the controversy, the Universalist doctrine is the best. They admit 
every body. There is nothing to be decided by this question of char- 
ity. It is all for effect. I have an exalted estimate of the opinion 
of this world, and would like to have the good opinion of every body 
in it; but I am not going to sacrifice truth, even to gain that. I pro- 
fess to be just as charitable as any body. Arminians, Calvinists, and 
all these parties, may come into my Church, retaining their opinions, 
if they believe and obey the ordinances of Christ. I simply appeal 
to you, as intelligent men and women, and I make no appeals save 
26 



306 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

in behalf of the truth. If my friend's arguments fail him. and he 
wants to gain your sympathy by appeals to charity, he is welcome 
to all he can gain. 

There is nothing in a name, my friend tells us. By this remark 
I was forcibly reminded of an anecdote : There was a meeting going 
on — may be in the Church of my brother — and they became very 
happy, when one of the preachers, just like him, became full of char- 
ity, and cried out that there was nothing in a name ; that every one 
might call on God in any manner they saw proper. After all the 
mourners had been admonished to believe in Christ, and just as the 
good feeling of the meeting had reached its full height, an old sister, 
in one corner, who had become exceedingly happy, suddenly cried 
out "Glory to Beelzebub! glory to Beelzebub!" One of the preach- 
ers said to her that he was glad to see her so happy, but that she 
must not talk in that way ; and that Beelzebub was the devil. " Oh," 
shouted back the old lady, "there's nothing in a name! Glory to 
Beelzebub! glory to Beelzebub!" 

There is all in a name. Nothing in the name of Christ, when he 
says "~No other name is given, under heaven, among men, whereby 
we can be saved"? I will tell my friend that the name is all in all. 
We can not be baptized in any other name save that of Jesus Christ. 
God grants us remission of sins in the name of Jesus Christ. He 
w r rites his name on his altar, and there, where his name is written, 
men bear their sacrifices, in the name of Jesus Christ, and all receive 
remission of sins in his name. I told you, my friends, that the vir- 
tuous bride will always wear the name of her husband ; I want to 
wear none but the name of him who died to redeem us. If there is 
nothing in a name, why does my friend complain of us that we wear 
the name Christian ? It is offensive when we call ourselves Chris- 
tians ; and yet, he tells us there is nothing in a name. If, as he says, 
there is nothing in a name, why should he complain ? 

Once more: They have got all that we have, and more, he says. 
Now, as I intimated, that "more" is the trouble. We do not ob- 
ject to the truth, but that "more" is just the objectionable feature. 
That " more " is his Discipline. If he would throw that away and 
take the Bible, he will have just what we have. 

These characteristics, he says, will prove his Church the Church 
of Christ. He is mistaken. The Church of God is not called the 
Methodist Episcopal Church South. They were called Christians, 
not Methodists. They had no creed, but the Bible. My friend has 
not the good confession, or any thing like it. They have not a 
church polity any thing like that of the apostolic Church. They 
do not admit members as did the Church of Christ. They have 
none of the characteristics of the primitive Church. I do not know 
any Church in the whole Protestant world that has fewer divine 
marks upon it than the Church cf my friend. 

He talks about the " Christian Church of God." Does he not know 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD ADDRESS. 307 

that T, or my brethren, never used such an expression ? Then, why 
should he attempt to make this audience believe I do? I will sim- 
ply leave you to judge of his motives after having heard me ; you 
know I did not use the expression at all. 

{Time Expired,.) 

General Gano. — " I wish you to state, brother Brooks, before 
you lake your seat, whether the remarks you made about the book 
from which Mr. Fitch read were intended to apply to him, or to the 
book." 

Mr. Brooks. — "To the book, of course, sir; no one that listened 
could have misunderstood me here." 

General Gano. — " I think not, sir." 

Mr. Brooks. — "But he ought not to have read from such a book." 



308 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I am very glad that brother Brooks made the statement he did, 
because it removes the necessity, upon my part, of saying some 
things I do not wish to say. I intend now to read some of these 
extracts, and have brother Gano take this book, and examine the 
quotations as I read them. [The speaker hands a book to the 
Moderator.] On p. 200, in the volume which brother Gano has in 
his hands, occurs this language : 

" For if immersion be equivalent to regeneration, and regenera- 
tion be of the same import with being born again, then being born 
again and being immersed are the same thing ; for this plain reason : 
that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to one an- 
other." 

Brother Gano, is that correct ? 

Mr. Gano. — Yes, sir. 

Again, on p. 201, we read : " Persons are begotten by the Spirit 
of God, impregnated by the word, and born of the water." 

Is that correct ? 

Mr. Gano.— Yes, sir. 

I usually know what I am about, I desire to take no unfair ad- 
vantage of an antagonist. If I can not maintain what I advocate 
by fair, honest, and legitimate means, and logical reasoning, then I 
will leave this stand and quit debating. My good brother has af- 
firmed that this is a perversion and a libel. I have only looked up 
two passages, because I have not time to look up more, but they have 
been quoted correctly. Now, until my good brother shows that they 
are misquoted (and I will designate the page so that they can easily 
be found), I have a right to use them, and I will do it, 

I will now read some more of Mr. Campbell's contradictory asser- 
tions. He says, in Christianity Restored, p. 249, that he never 
asked, and never expected any one to feel like a Christian before he 
was immersed ; and that a man can not feel like a Christian before 
he is immersed. But he contradicted this, by saying, in the Mill. 
Harb., New Series, pp. 506 and 507: "There is no occasion for 
making immersion on a profession of faith absolutely essential 
to the Christian, though it may be greatly essential to his sat- 
isfaction and comfort." . . . " We have in Paul's style the 
inward and outward Jews. May we not have inward and outward 
Christians ?" 



MR. FITCH S THIRD REPLY. 309 

Again: In Christ. Res., page 199, Mr. Campbell says: "This act 
of faith was presented as that act by which a change in their state 
could be effected, or, in other words, by which alone they could be 
pardoned. They who gladly received this word were that day im- 
mersed ; or, in other words, that same day were converted, or regen- 
erated, or obeyed the Gospel." 

He contradicts this in the Mill. Harh., vol. 1, pp. 411 and 412: 
"In reply to a conscientious sister, I observe, that if there be 
no Christians in the Protestant sects, there are certainly none 
among the Komanists, none among the Jews, Turks, Pagans, and 
therefore no Christians in the world except ourselves, or such 
of us as keep, or strive to keep, all the commandments of Jesus; 
therefore, for many centuries there has been no Church of Christ, 
no Christians in the world, and the promises concerning the ever- 
lasting kingdom of the Messiah have failed, and the gates of hell 
have prevailed against his Church ! This can not be, and therefore 
there are Christians among the sects." . . . "I can not, there- 
fore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, 
not even immersion into the name of the Father, of the Son, and 
of the Holy Spirit," etc. 

That is not the entire quotation, but it is as much as it is necessary 
for me to read. 

Again: In the Mill. Harb., vol. 7, page 62, Mr. Campbell says: 
"Let me only add here, on this subject, baptism is for the Church 
on earth, for the Gospel dispensation, and is not a door into heaven. 
It is not for procuring the remission of any man's sins on earth or 
in heaven; it is an ordinance for the actual possession and the pres- 
ent enjoyment of the remission which God bestows through ' the 
blood of the everlasting institution ' upon all that put themselves 
under the guidance of the Messiah." 

He declares, in the Christian System, page 202, that the Holy 
Spirit "calls nothing personal regeneration except the act of im- 
mersion." 

I will also notice his contradictions with reference to the Holy 
Spirit. In the Mill. Hark, vol. 2, page 295, he affirms, that "all 
the power of the Holy Spirit, which can operate upon the human 
mind, is spent." n 

Once more he declares, in Christian Baptist, page 353, that "sav- 
ing faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and no man can 
believe to the saving of his soul but by the Holy Spirit." 

And, in the Mill Harb., vol. 2, page 397, he affirms, that "the 
truth alone is all that is necessary to the conversion of men;" and, 
in his Debate with Dr. Bice (it can be found on the 616th page of 
the Debate), he says: "I would not, sir, value, at the price of a 
single mill, the religion of any man, as respects the grand affair of 
eternal life, whose religion is not begun, carried on, and completed 
by the personal agency of the Holy Spirit." 



310 BROOKS AND FITCII DEBATE. 

In the Mill. Barb., vol. 2, page 299, he sap: "You talk of 
faith wrought in the heart ; you might as well talk of light, or 
seeing, wrought in the eye; of sound, or hearing, wrought in the 
ear ; of taste wrought in the tongue ; or of feeling wrought in the 
hand. It is the quintessence of mysticism." 

He contradicts this in his Christian System, page 353 : "From the 
answer above given to query first, I am authorized to say, that sav- 
ing faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit, and that no 
man can believe to the saving of his soul but by the Holy Spirit." 

I could read a great many such quotations if I chose ; but I do not 
wish to weary your patience. There is one more that I would like 
to read if I could find it, but as I can not do so readily, I will state 
its substance. I will say, however, for fear my statement may be 
called in question, that I will produce the passage if the brother de- 
mands it. It is in the report of the debate between Mr. Campbell 
and Mr. Rice. He states that there are, in the church of which he 
was a member and minister, "all sorts of men, 'preaching all sorts of 
doctrine;" yet there is no division among them. Others are divided, 
but they are united. That is sufficient, perhaps, on the book ques- 
tion. 

The brother, when he is not able to meet an argument which 
presses him too closely, as the only means by which he can get out 
of the difficulty, rejects the whole thing just as he did my statistics, 
and this book, which I presented in evidence, although the very pages 
in Mr. Campbell's works where the quotations are to be found were 
given. You will remember that in his last speech he added nothing 
to the arguments which he presented this morning to prove that a 
church was instituted on the day of Pentecost, or that his Church 
was the church spoken of in that connection. He went to work 
and labored hard to prove that the Methodist Church was not the 
church instituted on the day of Pentecost. No one has affirmed any 
such thing. He would do well to w y ait until some one affirms that 
proposition before he attempts to deny it. Suppose he does prove 
that the Methodist Church was not instituted on the day of Pente- 
cost, what then? Suppose he does prove that it is no church at all, 
and we are consequently all out of the kingdom, and on the road to 
perdition? Will he draw therefrom a logical conclusion, that the 
Church known to-day as the "Disciples'," or "Christian Church," was 
instituted on the day of Pentecost? Does that prove any thing? If 
he argues from now until this time next week, and fully establishes 
such a fact as that, it does not prove any thing toward his propo- 
sition at all. 

The brother accused me, indirectly, of selecting scraps, or garbled 
extracts, from the writings of Mr. Campbell, and others, to show 
the inconsistencies and contradictory teachings of his Church. The 
first sentence which I read, and which brother Gano said was correct, 
is a complete sentence, separated from that which precedes it by a 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 311 

period, and from that which follows it by a period. The other is 
separated from that which goes before it by a colon, and from the 
sentence which follows it by a period ; and it is a complete sentence, 
for it makes sense of itself. And, if there is no close connection 
between the quotation and that which precedes, and that which fol- 
lows it, if it makes complete sense of itself, then it is neither gar- 
bled nor perverted, and the laws of criticism have not been violated 
by me, nor by the author from whom I read. 

But, sir, does not my friend attempt to build up his theories in the 
same way ? Does he not go through the New Testament, and select 
such passages as suit him, and build a theory upon them ? Then, 
when we endeavor to reconcile the passage which he quotes so often 
(for I believe he quotes it in almost every speech) — " Kepent and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re- 
mission of sins" — with the passages which teach justification by faith, 
he condemns us for it. The thing for which we are contending is 
the harmony of the Scriptures. We take the entire Scriptures, and, 
whenever we find seeming contradictions to be reconciled, we employ 
one passage to explain another. 

Then my friend referred to the officers in the Methodist Church, 
and said that there was no scriptural authority for them. I suppose 
he will argue that, as there is no scriptural authority for our presid- 
ing bishops, therefore his Church was instituted on the day of Pente- 
cost. That is the proposition which he has undertaken to prove, and 
it will not prove it to show that our bishops are unscriptural. I 
would like to know if there are not deacons in his Church ; and did not 
his brother, David Walk, some time ago, in the city of Philadelphia, 
ordain deaconesses ? He has contended for two orders in the Church ; 
why does he not contend for all of them, as his brother Walk does? 
If he wants to discuss the number of "orders" that properly per- 
tain to the Church, he can, I have no doubt, find some one Milling 
to discuss the question with him. If he wants to deny the scriptural 
authority for the number of orders in the Methodist Episcopal Church 
South, he can doubtless find some one willing to defend our polity. 

I would say, with reference to the correspondence to which he has 
several times alluded, and to which I never have alluded, and which 
I should not now mention if he had not referred to it, that I did not 
write a single word of it, and I knew very little about it, We made 
a strong effort to have it published, in order that this community 
might read and understand how these propositions were gotten up, 
and that they might be prepared for this debate, but the brother 
would not consent to its publication. He can make any assertion 
with reference to that correspondence he chooses, for I have never 
read it. It is true I heard the most of it read, but I can not possi- 
bly remember what it contained. I am willing to take the proposi- 
tion just as it is. He complains of me for having said that there is 
nothing in the Bible by which to prove his proposition ; but has he 



312 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

offered a single scriptural argument to prove that his Church was 
instituted at Pentecost? He manifests great astonishment that I 
should debate an absurd and senseless proposition. If he, in his 
eagerness for discussion, is willing to affirm any proposition, however 
absurd, that may be presented to him, then he can not reasonably 
complain of me for opposing it when I believe that it is absurd and 
unscriptural. If he is willing to undertake the proof of an absurd- 
ity, I have no more sense than to undertake to deny it. We are here 
to-day simply for the purpose of denying that his Church was insti- 
tuted on the day of Pentecost, and we have shown the unsoundness 
of Iris position beyond all controversy or doubt; we have shown that 
the thing is absolutely impossible. 

He says, but does not prove his assertion, that it is necessary for 
me to believe every thing in the New Testament in order to salva- 
tion. That is not the way in which I stated the question. If it is 
necessary for me to believe every thing in the New Testament in 
order to salvation, it is necessary for every man and woman in this 
house to believe every thing in it, and not one-half of them know 
what is in the New Testament. This debate has developed the fact 
that the brother himself does not know all that is in the New Testa- 
ment, and, if his salvation depends upon knowing it all, he had better 
search the Scriptures and ascertain what is absolutely essential to 
his salvation. I venture to assert that neither he, nor any other 
man who is not inspired, can know perfectly all that is contained in 
the New Testament. 1 know that some of his brethren sometimes 
affirm that the Scriptures are so plain that there need never be any 
controversy in regard to their meaning : but Peter, an inspired apos- 
tle, says that Paul wrote some things that were hard to be under- 
stood. And if Peter, with the Holy Spirit dwelling within him, and 
the divine afflatus filling his understanding and his heart, could not 
understand the deep and mysterious things to which Paul referred 
occasionally, how does he expect us, poor, fallible men and women, 
to understand them? No doubt those doctors who tell the people 
that they are right and can not be wrong, understand every thing 
written in the New Testament, necessary for them to believe in order 
to salvation; but to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, to sur- 
render my will always to the will of God, to enter into perpetual 
covenant with Him, and to live up to the teachings of such por- 
tions of the Scriptures as I can understand, is enough for me. 
Whenever it becomes necessary to understand the entire revelation 
of God in order to salvation, I am afraid I shall be excluded from 
the kingdom of God on earth, and from heaven. 

The brother related an anecdote of one of his preachers who 
prayed in the town of Poplar Plains. The anecdote was rather a 
poor one. I thank God that, soon after that prayer, a sister was 
happily converted. God gave her the Holy Spirit to " bear witness 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD REPLY. 313 

with her spirit that she was a child of God," and others were con- 
verted before the meeting closed. 

The " mourner's bench" has nothing to do with this proposition. 
I would like to know how he can prove any thing in regard to his 
church being instituted on the day of Pentecost b^the Methodist 
mourner's bench. He has referred to it several times during this 
debate, and I put this question to him as a Christian gentleman. If 
a man feels that he is a sinner, and under the sentence of God's law, 
if he feels that he needs pardon, and if he desires God's people to 
pray for him, and comes and kneels at the altar to indicate thnt 
desire, and asks God's people to pray for him, that his sins may be 
forgiven, and that his soul may be sanctified, and they kneel to- 
gether and offer one prayer, or a dozen prayers ; is there any thing 
irreverent, improper, or unscriptural in that? I would to God more 
men and women could be found at the mourner's bench ! I would 
to God that the preachers of all religious denominations Avould enjoin 
upon their people the need of more prayer — would teach them to 
pray as well as to be baptized. 

My friend talks about unity of faith. Some preachers of his de- 
nomination take the position, that a man has no right to pray before 
he is baptized. A person may be standing upon the very brink of 
ruin, just sinking down into the jaws of death and hell, and yet he 
dare not lift his heart to God in prayer ; dare not supplicate the 
throne of heavenly grace, until a preacher comes along to dip him 
into the water. Is that scriptural ? Is that religious ? Away with 
such an absurdity — with such an unscriptural idea. Let them pray, 
and praise God when they feel that their prayers have been answered ; 
when God has spoken peace to their souls. Thank God, thousands 
have been happily converted at the mourner's bench, and have re- 
joiced in the God of their salvation. 

My friend says, that I told you that there is nothing in a name. 
I say that there is nothing in a name when a man assumes that name 
himself, and claims it in an exclusive sense. I have no objection to 
my brother's calling himself a Christian, if he will recognize me as a 
Christian. But when, in an exclusive sense, he calls himself a Chris- 
tian, and pronounces me to be out of the kingdom, as he has done 
since this debate commenced, I protest against such a perversion 
of the word. I contend that he has no right to appropriate the name 
in an exclusive sense — none whatever. 

Then again, he denied that we had the "good confession." There 
is not a man or woman in this house, of ordinary intelligence, who 
does not know that the substance of that confession is contained in 
the language which I read. It is in this form: "Dost thou believe 
in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in 
Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord? " There is the con- 
fession, in substance. Now, I would like to have my friend prove, 
by a "Thus saith the Lord," that this good confession is required, 
27 



314 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

in the New Testament, to precede baptism. Did those who were at 
the house of Cornelius make the good confession before baptism, 
when Peter said, " Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?" 
Did the Apostle ask Lydia, "Dost thou believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God?" I would also ask him if Crispus, and Gaius, 
and Stephanus made this "good confession?" The eunuch said 
to Philip, "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. 
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
God." And Paul, in writing to Timothy, says that Jesus Christ wit- 
nessed a good confession before Pontius Pilate. Here is one plain 
statement of what my brother calls the good confession, and another 
indefinite allusion to it, or something like it. Mr. Brooks contends 
that every one must make this good confession, repeating these very 
words, for he objected to our confession, which contains it in substance. 
I would ask the brother if the practice of his Church in Winchester 
agrees with that of the apostles ? When persons in his Church call 
out, "Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved," do they 
reply, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ? " 
or do they respond, "Baptism is for the remission of sins"? I 
would like to know if they have all things in common, as the prim- 
itive Christians did after that transaction on the day of Pentecost? 
for we read that they sold their possessions, and had all things in 
common. Is that their practice? If they should adopt that plan in 
this country, I am afraid there would be some disturbance, and some 
of them would have to be carried to the cemetery. Paul went out to 
preach the unsearchable riches of Christ, and worked at his trade, 
that he might not be chargeable to any man, and brother Brooks 
receives two thousand dollars a year for preaching to a congrega- 
tion in a town, while Ave Methodists, some of us, only get about a 
thousand; and yet, he is a follower of the Apostle Paul, and we are 
excluded from the kingdom. These, I suppose, are some of the 
points of similarity. After baptism, does he place his hands upon 
the heads of his converts, and do they receive the Holy Ghost, as in 
apostolic times? If they do none of these things, how T can they 
claim to be the Church instituted on the day of Pentecost ? And do 
they not deny the personal influence — that is, the direct and imme- 
diate influence — of the Holy Spirit upon the heart of man ? If the 
brother will show that his Church is like the Apostolic Church in 
these regards ; if they pray that those whom they baptize may re- 
ceive the Holy Ghost; if they have all things in common; if their 
ministers work at their respective trades, in order that they may be 
chargeable to no one, then he may talk to us concerning the re- 
semblance which his Church bears to that which was instituted on 
the day of Pentecost. 

Time expired. 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 315 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

If my friend, Mr. Fitch, preached the Gospel all the time, per- 
haps he, too, would get two thousand dollars, but if he preaches 
Methodism, he ought not to get a thousand, for it is not worth any 
thing to the world. 

I will briefly reply to the speech you have just heard. The point 
I made in reference to the book from which he read was simply this: 
The quotations in that book of Mr. Ray's are all misapplied. He 
garbles and misinterprets the words he quotes, and Mr. Fitch ought 
to know it. Besides the infamous assertions of Mr. Ray, which he 
read, he gave us some extracts from the writings of Mr. Campbell, 
which, without their connection, are calculated to convey a false idea. 
Mr. Campbell may have said some things I do not indorse, but the 
effort to make him inconsistent is simply a deliberate attempt to 
pervert what he has written. 

All the extracts Mr. Fitch read from Mr. Ray's book, taken 
in their connection, are neither in antagonism with his creed, nor 
with the faith that I preach. I call your attention to one of these 
(Christian System, p. 210). The gentleman read only the words 
''Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated by the 
word, and born of water." This passage, in its connection, reads 
as follows: "The Spirit of God is the begetter, the Gospel is 
the seed ; and being thus begotten, and quickened, we are born of 
the water. A child is alive before it is born, and the act of being 
born only changes its state, not its life. Just so in the metaphori- 
cal birth. Persons are begotten by the Spirit of God, impregnated 
by the word, and born of the water. In one sense, a person is born 
of his father, but not until he is first born of his mother. So in 
every place where water and the Spirit, or water and the word, are 
spoken of, the water stands first." 

Mr. Campbell teaches in this passage that the Spirit quickens the 
sinner ; that the Gospel is the seed in the heart of the sinner, and a 
man that is born (quickened) of the Spirit must also be born of the 
water, just as they say every time they baptize a person into the 
Methodist Church. We believe the quotations the gentleman has 
made, when they are in their proper connection — a great majority 
of them at least. I know what Mr. C. has written, and I know r 
that he has not contradicted himself. He quoted the expression : 
" Faith is wrought in the heart by the Holy Spirit." Now, I believe 



316 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

that. He knows I do ; you know it. I have preached it long 
enough for you all to know it. Because I do not teach a miracu- 
ous and direct influence, he would have you believe that I do not 
teach the influence of the Spirit at all. 

He wants to know why I do not come and join his Church. He 
has known the reason all day. In the first place, it was not founded 
by the Savior, but by Wesley, and he has not a scriptural tenet in 
his confession or creed that I do not have at home. Secondly, there 
is no necessity of going there, for it is a human institution. 

He said a good deal about praying for sinners. My objection to 
his mourner's bench is, not that the sinner prays there, but because 
I believe with Ananias that every mourner should be told to arise 
and be baptized, and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the 
Lord. I want him to pray from the time he believes until he dies. 
My objection to the mourner's bench is, that they keep men there 
praying that God may, by some immediate influence, give them 
pardon, when the word of God by Ananias would tell them to 
"arise and be baptized, and wash away their sins, calling on the 
name of the Lord." In other words, to comply with the conditions 
of pardon which God has established. Baptism is one of these 
conditions. Then he should tell believers to repent and be bap- 
tized, and after this, just as fast as they can know his command- 
ments, to obey them, but to pray always. We have no objection to 
prayer. 

"Men and brethren, what shall we do to be saved?" It is not 
often the gentleman hears that speech now, for the simple reason 
that every one in this country has heard the Gospel from infancy, 
and, of course, they know what to do, and as soon as they make up 
their minds, they go and do it. 

But the gentleman has found a few things in which we do not 
as:ree with the primitive Church. Wonderful discovery it is, too. 
We do not sell all we have, and give to the poor, having every thing 
in common. Again: we do not confer the miraculous gil'ts of the 
Spirit by the imposition of hands. The first, Mr. Fitch, was a ne- 
cessity imposed on the Church at Jerusalem, by the persecutions of 
the hour, and when they were about to be scattered abroad. The 
latter was miraculous, and the days of miracles have passed away. 
But, if this is the best he can do in the way of objection, then, indeed, 
have we gained the question. 

I proceed then, briefly, to review the argument I have submitted 
to-day : 

There cau be but one Church of Christ on this earth, for the Savior 
said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church ; " not "my churches," 
but "I will build my Church." That Church must be a unit, for 
he ever speaks of it as the Church, the temple, field, house, etc. ; 
indeed, he always speaks of it in the siugulur number. The various 
parties of the day can not be branches of that Church, for the Savior 



MR. BROOKS^ FOURTH ADDRESS. 317 

said, " I am the vine, and ye (members in particular) are the branches." 
Nor can these Churches be the various members of the body, because 
he says the whole Church is the body of Christ, and, as individuals, 
members of that body. " Ye are the body of Christ, and members 
in particular ;" each one of you is a member of that body, and all 
the churches of God constitute the body. Then there is unity, a 
perfect unity, in this body, that does not belong to the various parties. 
In every community of Christians, there can be that unity. Is it to 
be found in the Church of my friend, as it exists in this State and 
others, divided into Northern and Southern churches, and fiercely 
contending in the courts of the land ? As evidence of this, I have 
in my possession a quotation from the Nashville Christian Advocate, 
in which they charge that the Northern bishops have taken possession 
of the Southern churches in East Tennessee. If the gentleman de- 
nies this, we will read it to-morrow. 

Now, then, in the next place, if the Church of Christ is to be 
identified, it can not be on the score of age, because all existing 
parties are too young in this respect. If you count from the begin- 
ning of every party since the Reformation, we are air too young. 
The one divine test, then, is, has the Church now the same charac- 
teristics that belonged to the primitive Church, established by the 
apostles of Jesus Christ? That Church, my friend will confess, was 
the true Church; that it was the Church established by Christ; 
that it was right ; that it was complete ; that it was perfect. Well, 
then, if any one of the existing Churches corresponds with that, in 
all its marked characteristics, that one must be the same Church, 
and the only one authorized by the word of God. If the Apostle Paul 
was on earth this day, what Church would he seek? Would he 
inquire for the Methodist Episcopal Church South ? Would he do it ? 
Would he not ask for the Church of Christ, or the Church of God ? 
Would he inquire of the Methodists for a place in which he might 
sojourn? Would he not ask for some of the saints, disciples, breth- 
ren, or Christians, with whom he might tarry? Most assuredly. 
This teaches us that Paul was a member of a Church thus named 
and organized. The Church of Christ is that Church. We, his 
people, call ourselves by that name. It is the Church of God, or the 
Church of Christ. We call ourselves Christians, disciples, saints, 
as they called themselves, and we refuse to be called by other 
names, because they are human, and make divisions in the Church 
of God. As soon as men give up these party creeds, and party in- 
strumentalities, then will the Church of God be one on earth ; but 
never until then. While there are many creeds, there will be many 
parties. Now, then, there is one thing upon which we can all agree — 
the name Christian. We can agree upon no other name. Again: 
"The Church of God," " the Church of Christ." We can not agree 
on any other name for the Church. 

We have conclusively shown that the primitive Church had no 



318 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

creed but trie Bible. That creed we have. We reject all authority 
outside of that. We receive, as authority, the opinions of no man, 
but simply take the Bible as our guide. The gentleman might in- 
deed say that, in this way, we may sometimes admit bad men into 
the Church. Well, so dees he, and so did the primitive Church. By 
this, he may tell us we can not keep out errorists. Well, they did 
not keep out errorists. Some of them denied that there was a resur- 
rection, like the Sadducees, who wanted men simply to observe the 
law of Moses, without regard to Christ. There were, also, Univers- 
alists in that Church, claiming that the judgment was past. There 
were errorists of all descriptions in that Church, just as there are 
now. The apostles did not think it necessary to make a creed to keep 
them out. My friend made a creed to keep out error; in making 
that creed, he made a party, divided the Church of God, and filled 
the world with error. The Church of God is divided, and its strength 
and power is broken. He can not controvert this fact. 

We claim to be the Church of God, again, because we take the 
good confession, just as they did. My friend invited your attention 
to this subject in his last speech. Now, then, the Savior said : "Upon 
this rock I will build my Church." What does he mean ? This is the 
great truth to be believed, and to be confessed ; hence, Philip required 
the eunuch to make that confession. Timothy made that confession ; 
but my friend says this passage refers to the confession of Christ, made 
before Pontius Pilate. Paul said Timothy himself made the confes- 
sion, as also Christ made it before Pontius Pilate. Paul says that 
this confession was in the mouth of every Christian in Rome : "That 
is the word of faith, which we preach: that if thou shalt confess with 
thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God 
has raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." How did he 
know this, unless it was the universal practice of the primitive 
Church to require that confession? My friend can not show that 
one single inspired preacher ever required any thing more or less, 
and yet he does not hesitate to require more, and complains of me 
for conforming strictly to primitive practice. 

Again: We have the same organization as that of the primitive 
Church. When we preach the Gospel, we proclaim it as they did. 
We simply preach Jesus, and him crucified. We turn neither to the 
right nor to the left for Arminianism or Calvinism. We do not care 
whether men believe these systems or not, so that they bow before 
the authority of Jesus Christ. We call upon men to believe, to re- 
pent, and be baptized for the remission of sins. If they repent, we 
say to them: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord." If we find an infidel, as brother 
Tibbs did recently, we say to him, as Paul said to the jailer : " Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ," and then preach the Gospel, that he 
may believe. 

We give the believers the same answer that Peter gave the be- 



MR. BROOKS'S FOURTH ADDRESS. 319 

lievers on Pentecost; the believing penitent, the same that Ananias 
gave Saul: "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, call- 
ing on the name of the Lord." 

I ask, in conclusion, if ours be not the Church of God, where 
can you find it on earth ? Can you find, in the teachings, practice, 
and polity of any other church a more perfect similarity to the 
primitive Church? If my friend can find it, or if mortal man can 
show it to me, I pledge myself to go into that Church, and live and 
die in it, God being my helper. But, sir, with all. these points of 
similarity, I must not be called upon to abandon the truth, to 
abandon what the apostles preached, and what the Son of God com- 
manded, and go into that which we have proven to-day to be hu- 
man in origin — human in all its characteristics, the result of the "in- 
ventive genius" of men, and gotten up to meet the exigencies of the 
times. Surely my friend was speaking extravagantly when he ex- 
pected me to leave the Church of Christ to go to the church he has 
presented — a church "founded upon the long experience of years, 
and remarks made upon ancient aud modern churches." 

We have simply to stand where the apostles stood, and to follow 
in the track which they have marked out. We do not know any 
thing else, and do not want to know any thing else. If the apostles 
of Jesus Christ started out under that broad commission, to preach 
Jesus Christ, and him crucified, we intend to do it. And, if they 
call upon men to repent and be baptized, we intend to do it. To 
penitents we intend to say, "Arise and be baptized, and wash away 
your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord." We leave the ques- 
tion, with the pleasing consciousness that you understand it, and 
that you will act in the matter as you sincerely desire to know and 
obey the truth. 



320 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY, ON THE FIFTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen : 

My friend and brother came here this morning to prove that 
the church known at this day as the "Disciples'" or "Christian 
Church" was instituted on the day of Pentecost I told you, in my 
reply to his first speech, that he had to prove two things : first, that a 
Church was instituted on the day of Pentecost, and then, if he suc- 
ceeded in proving that, he must also prove that his Church is that 
identical Church. He told us, in the beginning of his last speech, 
that he would review the arguments which he had offered in support 
of the proposition, and I have no doubt that he thought he did so, 
and doubtless there are those here who thought that they were 
overwhelming. I confess that I am perfectly satisfied with them, 
but I am satisfied that they do not prove the proposition. 

With reference to the quotations I made from Mr. Ray's book, and 
■which heat first pronounced to be "false, and gottenupfor special occa- 
sions like the present one," he now admits that they are correct, but says 
that, taken out of their proper connection, they misrepresent Mr. 
Campbell ; but I showed that the two which I read while brother 
Gano overlooked me, made complete sense just as they stood. They 
taught just what their language imported. The gentleman told us, in 
the beginning of that speech, that he did not indorse every thing 
that Mr. Campbell had said — no, not he. Then he changed position, 
and said that if these quotations were put in their proper connection,' 
he believed what they taught; he believed every thing that Mr. 
Campbell had written. That is, I suppose he meant nearly every 
thing he had said or written. Well, how are we to understand a 
gentleman who does believe Campbell, and who does not believe Camp- 
bell f How are we to reconcile Brooks with Brooks any better than 
Campbell with Campbell ? 

Well, I was glad to hear him say that he did not object to praying. 
I know, however, that some of his people do object to prayer before 
baptism. He does not object to praying, but he said, a little while 
ago, that the thing to which he objected was keeping a man at it 
for days at a time. He does not believe in praying always. I sup- 
pose, then, he does not believe every thing that Paul wrote, for Paul 
says, "Pray without ceasing." If a man prays a little while, and 
f^els that hte prayer is not answered, it seems to me, that he ought 
to continue in prayer unceasingly until he receives the blessing for 
which he is seeking. 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 321 

I am glad my opponent took the position "which he did with refer- 
ence to the Holy Spirit. He said he was willing to admit that the 
Spirit wrought faith in the heart; but, according to his theory, it only 
operates through the Word. I would like to inquire if the Spirit 
works faith through his preaching? Does he introduce a passage of 
Scripture here and there in his discourses, in order to give tjie Spirit 
a chance to work ? If the Spirit operates only through the inspired 
Word, and not through his preaching, had he not better employ his 
time in reading the Bible to the people, in order that the Spirit may 
have a chance to work faith in their hearts, instead of spending the 
time in preaching ? His preaching, according to his theory, does not 
amount to any thing unless it is Scripture, and it can not be Scrip- 
ture unless he confines himself to the Bible. It was the miraculous 
and direct operation of the Spirit to which he objected. The opera- 
tion may be direct and not miraculous. There is where the brother 
fails to make a distinction. Very often he makes a distinction that, 
I admit, I am too obtuse to perceive, but where he ought to make 
distinctions which are plainly made in the word of God, he does not 
make them. 

I would like to have the brother answer one question, and tell us 
what Jesus Christ meant when he said, "If earthly parents know 
how to give good gifts to their children, how much more will your 
Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" Can 
that promise be restricted in its application to the apostles? We 
think not. It includes every one that asks. But the brother would 
probably answer the question by saying he gives the "Holy Spirit" 
to them through the word; but, if they have the Bible, it is not nec- 
essary to ask for the "Holy Spirit:" they have only to read the 
Scriptures, and they will receive the Holy Spirit. If the direct gift 
of the Holy Spirit is not here intended, nothing is meant. We will 
notice the objections which he offered to continued prayer a little 
farther. When the Holy Spirit directed Ananias to go to Saul, he 
said, "Behold, he prayeth!" Mind you, he had not been baptized. 
You will remember a controversy took place, a short time since, in 
the Christian Review, as to whether a man ought to pray before he 
was baptized — some of the controversialists affirming, and some de- 
nying it. I do not remember which side brother Brooks took upon 
this question. But Paul prayed, and prayed before he was baptized ; 
and he was three days and nights, in darkness, sorrow, and penitence, 
praying to God. And Ananias went to him, and said: "Saul, the 
Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou 
earnest, hast sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight and be 
filled with the Holy Ghost;" and "immediately there fell as it had 
been scales from his eyes, and he received his sight" and the Holy 
Ghost at the same time, because they were both included in the 
promise. Here is a case of prayer — continued, earnest prayer — by 
an unbaptized man. 



322 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

We are told by the affirmant that there can be but one churclt. 
Who contradicts that ? There is but one church — the Church of 
the "Living God." But who compose that Church? He tells you 
that Mr. Brooks, and all the good people in this country who are 
called "Christians," compose that one Church of Christ, and we 
poor Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, and oth- 
ers, must, necessarily, if we do not belong to the kingdom and Church 
of God, belong to the kingdom of Satan. He allows my good brother 
French a place in the kingdom, but does not tell us how he got there, 
for he was not baptized for the remission of sins^ and Mr. Campbell 
says, unless he received baptism, with this knowledge and this in- 
tent, it was as empty as a blasted nut — a shell which contains no 
kernel. Yet he stands up and inveighs against Romanism — against 
its infallibility, its dogmas, its tyranny, and its exclusiveness. He 
does not admit that we are the people of God, although we have the 
" oracles of God," and " believe on his only-begotten Son." He thinks 
there is but one church, and his denomination is that church. I 
affirm that the Church which Jesus Christ bought with his blood is 
composed of every pardoned believer, be he called Christian, Bap- 
tist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopalian, or Romanist. 
Wherever you find a man. believing that "Jesus is the Christ, the 
Son of God" — who has God's Spirit witnessing with his spirit that he 
is a child of God — you behold a member of God's Church and house- 
hold. 

I do not wish to say any thing irrelevant to the question, for I wish 
to be, in every respect, fair and honest in this debate. 

Again, I assert that every thing the brother has advanced to prove 
that his Church is the identical Church instituted on the day of Pen- 
tecost proves just as much for all other churches as it does for his 
Church. If his Church was then instituted, because they believe that 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Methodist Church was, for the 
same reason, instituted at the same time. If his Church was insti- 
tuted on the day of Pentecost because they practice immersion, then 
mine was instituted at the same time, because we practice immersion. 
Every argument by which he would prove that his Church dates back 
to the day of Pentecost, is equally valid to prove that my Church, 
the Presbyterian Church, or any other church, was originated at the 
same time. 

But the gentleman says that some of the things to which I referred 
were extraordinary ; that those things which belong to the Church 
in one age of the world do not belong to it in every age ; and 
what is required at one period of the Church's existence is not re- 
quired at another ; all this applies to my Church as well as to his, 
but still he gets his church back far enough, and makes it old 
enough to have been present at the day of Pentecost. If he wishes 
to prove that his church is a continuation of this old Apostolic 
Church, he should present some characteristics which it has of the 



MR. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 323 

Apostolic Church ; but he has not presented a single one which the 
Methodist Church does not also possess. We have the Bible, bap- 
tism, the Lord's Supper, and every thing of the kind that he has. And 
if he takes the position that his church is identical with the church 
then established, I call upon him again to prove it. My friend's 
church does not have all things in common, and its ministers do not 
work at trades in order to be chargeable to no man. He does not 
lay his hand upon the heads of those whom he baptizes, in order 
that they may receive the Holy Spirit, and they have not deaconesses 
in all his bodies, or organizations. These are some of the distinc- 
tive characteristics of the Apostolic Church, which his church does 
not possess. 

But he tells us that many of these things were extraordinary; but 
if his church is that church, it is a church vested with extraordinary 
powers and rights. If his church is that church, every thing apper- 
taining to it of an extraordinary character, then, ought still to belong 
to it. Have they men belonging to it who can work miracles ? Do 
they make an equal distribution of all they have alike to great and 
small ? If not, how can he prove that his church and the Apostolic 
Church are the same. He inquired if Paul should come to the 
earth to seek the Lord's people, if he would ask for a Methodist 
Church ? Allow me to relate an incident that occurred in Bourbon 
County not long since : A minister of his church delivered a dis- 
course, in which he represented Jesus Christ as having returned to 
the earth, and as seeking his Church and people. He represented 
him in the first place as going to the Methodist Church, fie knocks 
at the door, which is immediately opened unto him. He looks in 
and inquires, " Who are these?" and the reply comes from within, 
"We are Methodists." The Savior responds, "These are not my 
people," and then, turning away, directs his steps toward the Pres- 
byterian Church, where a like scene transpires ; he then represented 
him as approaching the church of my brother ; he knocks at the 
door, w r hich is opened unto him, when he inquires, "Who are these?" 
Thereupon the minister inquires of his congregation, "What shall 
we tell him ? " and the response is, " We are Christians." At this 
announcement, the Lord Jesus Christ, with manifest delight, ex- 
claims, "This- is the Church for which I died, and these are my peo- 
ple, for they bear my name." A good Christian brother, who heard 
this wonderful discourse, approached a Methodist, who was also pres- 
ent at its delivery, and, with unfeigned delight, inquired his opinion 
of it. The Methodist replied, that " if Jesus Christ was such a fool 
as to be deceived by the mere assumption of the name Christian, 
that he, too, would assume the name of Christian when he came for 
him." Does my good brother think that Jesus Christ would be 
under the necessity of making such an inquiry? God knoweth. 
them that are his, for he hath " sealed them with the Holy Spirit of 
promise," and he doth not need that any man should tell him who 



324 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

are his. When the resurrection trump shall sound to awaken them 
that sleep in the dust, the dead in Christ shall come forth from the 
grave and be caught up in the clouds with him. No such questions, 
as tjie brother supposed, will be asked. My opponent attempts to 
identify his Church with the Apostolic. Church, by showing that the 
primitive Church had no creed. The primitive Church attached 
more importance to a certain book called the Old Testament than 
his Church does. We read in the New Testament that Paul went 
into a synagogue, as was his custom, and reasoned Sabbath after 
Sabbath with the Jews, alleging and proving by the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. Indeed, the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures were all they possessed for some time, for the New 
Testament was not written until several years after the resurrection 
of Christ. 

The Old Testament was their creed until the New Testament was 
written, but the brother makes but little use of the Old Testament. 
I desire to call his attention to another fact, with reference to the 
good confession about which he has spoken so frequently. There is 
no scriptural proof that any man was ever required to repeat the so- 
called good confession. We find it recorded in but one place in the 
Bible. Philip did not require the eunuch to make it. He only 
said: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may est be bap- 
tized." He did not say, as is the practice of my good brother, " Dost 
thou believe with all thy heart that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?" 
He simply inquired as to his faith, and the eunuch replied: "I be- 
lieve that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." They have changed 
it slightly, and if they will change it a little more, they will have it 
in the form in which it stands in our Discipline. If they take the 
liberty to change it a little, why may they not change it more ? 
Philip did not require the eunuch to repeat the formula. He simply 
assured him that, if he believed in Jesus Christ, he might be bap- 
tized, and the eunuch responded in the language of the confession. 
I defy my friend to show, from the New Testament, that auy apostle 
ever required any man to repeat the words, " I believe that Jesus i3 
the Christ, the Son of God," before the rite of baptism was admin- 
istered to him. He protested, iu piteous tones, against joining my 
Church, and said he "could not do it," yet I verily believe that 
he is almost persuaded to be a Methodist. He has certainly utterly 
failed to prove his proposition. He certainly must have seen that 
his arguments were without foundation, and his theory but the base- 
less fabric of a vision. It is water, and only water; and wheu he 
thinks to plant himself upon it securely, he is seen for a moment, 
and is, then, swept away by the waves. You will remember the 
passages which he read this morning, and that they prove nothing 
with reference to the proposition. No Church was instituted on the 
day of Pentecost. It is incidentally mentioned in the record of that 
transaction that "there were added to them three thousand souls," 



ME. FITCH'S FOURTH REPLY. 325 

and it is further stated that there were " added daily to the Church 
such as should be saved." There is not the slightest reference to 
the institution of a church, to the organization of a church, or to any 
thing of that kind, because it was an admitted fact that the Church 
already existed. Christ came to his own, and his own received him 
not, in their official character. But the common people received him 
gladly, and they constituted the nucleus of future growth — the old 
olive-tree into which the Gentiles were grafted. The branches, wild 
by nature, were grafted on to the old stock with those which re- 
mained, and the Church was thus perpetuated and preserved. 

I will now fill up ray remaining time in presenting what I under- 
stand by a church. The term "Church" has but two meanings in 
the New Testament. The apostles sometimes use it with reference 
to the entire body of Christian believers, as, when they say, the 
"Church of God," and "Jesus Christ loved the Church, and gave 
himself for it." They use the term thus in a collective sense, em- 
bracing every pardoned believer in Jesus Christ. Then they use 
it again in a restricted sense, to designate a body of believers, in a 
certain place, as when it is said, the "church which is at Jerusa- 
lem," the " church which is in thy house," or the " church at Co- 
losse." And the very fact that the brother himself might found a 
church, in the manner which I explained this morning, refutes the 
theory for which he contends. To found a church, it is not neces- 
sary to go out with an organization having legal enactments, and 
positive laws, and say to the people, " Come in and be saved." But 
the man goes and preaches the unsearchable riches of Christ, glorying 
in his cross, and presenting him as the power of God. Such preach- 
ing will be attended by the power of t}ie Spirit. It will take effect 
upon the hearts of the people, and they will be converted to the fact 
that Jesus is the Christ; they will come to him and be reconciled. 
Then they receive the sacrament of initiation, and become a church. 
If five pei'sons are thus converted, they are a church — they are a 
scriptural church, and a Christian church. Assuming a name by 
which they may be recognized, by which they may be distinguished 
from other denominations, is an after matter, which does not affect 
their relations to God in the least. They are just as much a church, 
if they are converted, and have been baptized, before they assume 
the name Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, or Christian, as they are 
after they assume such a name. That is the way in which churches 
spring into existence. 

God gave man religion, and man promulgates that religion, and 
persons embrace it, and are saved by it. It is to every one that 
believes the power of God unto salvation. When they experience 
this salvation, the very nature and tendency of which brings them 
together, they unite in social and fraternal relations. It is the very 
spirit and tendency of religion to bring its votaries together. And 
when they come together, they are incited by the desire to promul- 



326 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

gate their religion, and save the world, so they adopt rules and 
laws, specific and general, by which they can disseminate their prin- 
ciples. 

The brother has in his own Church institutions not appointed in 
the Word of God — Sunday-schools, for instance, and missionary 
societies. So I take the position that every converted people 
who believe in the existence of God, in human depravity, and in 
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior of the world, the Redeemer 
of mankind, and the Judge of the earth, who give themselves in 
perpetual covenant to him, constitute a Christian church — a church 
of God. But this exclusive idea that erects walls to keep out 
others, is unscriptural, unchristian, and uncharitable. With my 
views I can meet every man who professes to be a Christian, and 
brings forth the fruits of Christianity, and call him brother. But 
these men, who hold exclusive ideas upon the subject, who exclude 
all others from place and position, in the church of God, on account 
of differences of opinion, violate our notions of right whenever they 
call a man "brother," who in their hearts they believe to be out of 
the kingdom. 

I believe I have answered all the arguments presented by the 
brother, and having but a minute or two of time remaining, I sub- 
mit the question, with full confidence in the ability of this audience 
to make a correct decision. 



SIXTH PROPOSITION. 



THE DOCTRINE AND POLITY OF THE METHODIST CHURCk 

PRESENT A FEASIBLE BASIS FOR THE UNION 

OF ALL PROTESTANT CHRISTIANS. 



Saturday, September 18, 1869. 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Saturday, September l&th. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

D'Atjbigne, the celebrated historian of the Reformation, says that 
the sixteenth century was the epoch of a great separation ; the nine- 
teenth century must furnish the basis of a great union. It appears, 
from all the signs of the times, that the great historian was not in- 
correct in his predictions, for to-day the question of evangelical union 
excites more discussion than it ever has since the divisions caused by 
the Reformation. I look upon the uniting of different churches of 
the same faith and order, and the establishment of fraternal alliances 
between all the churches, as among the great agencies for carrying 
out this desirable object. 

The American Bible Society is putting the word of God into every 
house and family, and the various tract societies are contributing 
their share to the spread of religious truth, and are facilitating, in 
this way, the long-prayed-for and much-desired union of Protestant 
Christians. We are here to-day not to advocate union in the ab- 
stract, but to affirm that, among the different Protestant churches 
of the land, none present a more feasible basis of union than we pre- 
sent in the creed of the Methodist Church. I shall be under the 
necessity of examining, to some extent, the doctrines and forms of 
polity of other churches, and of drawing lines of comparison between 
them and the Methodist Church. It is not that I like them less that 
I advocate the claims of the Methodist Church to-day, but that I 
like the Methodist Church more. 

The proposition, as read in your hearing, is as follows: " The 
Doctrine and Polity of the Methodist Church present a feasible basis of 
Union for Protestant Christians." That is what I undertake to prove. 
Every church has a creed, either written or implied, in which is set 
forth the tenets supposed by that church to be taught in the word of 
God. The Protestant churches which have adopted creeds or confes- 
sions of faith contend that they are based upon the Bible ; and they 
are designed to present a summary of what the Bible teaches. To 
show that this is true with reference to the Methodist Church, I will 
read her twenty-five Articles of Religion, as found in the "Discipline," 
28 (329) 



330 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

when I have advanced a little farther. My opponent will doubtless 
do as he did yesterday — confound the polity of the Methodist Church 
with her doctrines. He will doubtless make a wholesale attack upon 
creeds also. I think I shall be able to show him, before we close this 
discussion, that his Church has an implied creed, and that they are 
just as tenacious of it as the Methodists, or any other religious de- 
nomination, are of theirs. I will show him that they have pruden- 
tial arrangements and forms of polity not found in the New Testa- 
ment, nor positively authorized by the word of God. 

A creed is necessary for the preservation of pure doctrine. In 
Titus iii: 10, we read : "A man that is a heretic, after the first and 
second admonition, reject." If the Church has no well-defined summary 
of what it believes to be the teachings of God's word, how are they 
to decide when a man is a heretic? A man may, while professing 
to believe, and to be guided by the Bible, hold the most fatal errors, 
and practice the greatest immoralities; and, if he is unprincipled, 
he may contend that God's word sanctions his immoral practices. 
If the church of which he is a member has given no expression of 
what it believes the Bible allows and prohibits, how shall it be known 
that this offender is violating what the Church holds to be vital to 
truth and religion ? 

If he is excommunicated by the Church, is not the decision ren- 
dered against him a formal declaration of their faith upon this sub- 
ject? Most certainly it is. And if they would commit it to writing 
as their judgment in the premises, it would be a part of their creed. 

And why not preserve it in a written form, for future use, and avoid 
the necessity of having to perform the same work again, should an- 
other heretic be discovered in the Church? We can not know what 
doctrines are held and taught by a Church, unless they formally de- 
clare them. The simple fact that they claim to believe the Scriptures 
gives us no assurance that they are orthodox; for the wildest fanatics 
known to the Christian world have claimed as much. 

I desire to unite with a church ; I see quite a number of congre- 
gations in the same town or city, all differing in their teachings, and 
in their forms of polity, and all claiming to be scriptural. They all 
receive the Bible as the word of God, but I find them inculcating 
different principles. How shall I determine which is nearest right? 
Which teaches most of the truth? AVell, I go to a Presbyterian 
minister, and say: "Sir, what do you believe are the teachings of 
the Bible? What are the cardinal doctrines of your Church? He 
offers me a Confession of Faith. I read it, and compare it with the 
word of God, and form my conclusions as to the correctness of the 
teachings of the Presbyterian Church. I then go to the minister, or 
member of a church without a written creed, and propound substan- 
tially the same questions as before asked, when he replies, " We 
believe the New Testament;" but. I remark, "Here is a little book 
called a Discipline, which sets forth what certain people calling them- 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 331 

selves Methodists believe the Bible teaches; and here is another, called 
a Confession of Faith, setting forth the peculiar views of a people 
styled Presbyterians; do you agree with either of these?" Imme- 
diately the man begins to expound the Scriptures, but finding this 
to be rather a slow way of presenting the belief of himself and 
Church, he goes to his bookcase, takes out a book, and hands it to 
me. I receive it, and lo, it is the Christian System ! He says, read 
that, and you will see what we believe and teach. 

All the truths of the Bible are not formally stated. Some are 
taught formally and plainly, while others are taught more by impli- 
cation. Many persons have not leisure time for studying the Holy 
Scriptures, and are dependent upon others for a knowledge of divine 
flings. It is, therefore, both convenient and profitable to have a 
summary of the cardinal doctrines of religion. 

There are many things immoral in themselves which are not posi- 
tively prohibited by the word of God. Such, for instance, are danc- 
ing, theatrical performances, the whisky traffic, etc. Now, we believe 
that these are all contrary to the spirit of our holy religion, and 
ought not to be tolerated by the Church among its members. But 
as they are not specifically prohibited by the word of God, how are 
we to pronounce sentence against them? How would the brother 
proceed in a case of this kind? Why, he would call together the 
church, and they would decide by vote that such things are unchris- 
tian, and would hold the offender to discipline. But would not their 
decision, in a case of this kind, be just that much of a creed, inas- 
much as it sets forth the belief of the Church ? I think it would. 

A creed is also necessary to hold church property. Suppose a 
number of persons professing to be Christians, having no creed but 
the Bible, should buy property in this town and have it deeded to 
them under the name of the Christian Church ; and suppose a ma- 
jority of them should apostatize, and still claim to be the original 
Christian Church, what would be the consequences ? Their apostasy 
might be so flagrant as to be evident to every one ; but if they con- 
tinued to style themselves Christians ; continued to profess a belief 
in the inspiration and divinity of the Scriptures, no court in the land 
would take from them that to which they would have no moral right 
whatever. The minority, who are Christians, and the rightful owners 
of the property, might be expelled from the body, and have no source 
of redress for their wrongs. 

But my friend will tell you that creeds have been fruitful causes 
of division in the religious world ; that they have caused all the 
strife and schism that have torn and divided the Church of God. 
A minute's reflection will satisfy any intelligent man that this is not 
true. The conflicting sentiments which cause men to build up creeds 
and parties must exist in their minds and hearts before they can be 
wrought into creeds : differences of opinion cause divisions, and creeds 
are -the expressions of these differences of opinion. No man can 



332 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

write a creed until its tenets and principles already exist in his mind 
and heart. Creeds and divisions are the results of the different opin- 
ions held by the religious world. 

Mr. Brooks calls himself a Christian, and claims to have no creed 
but the Bible, but how do you know what he believes, or that he is a 
Christian? Here is another man, who claims to believe the Bible, 
and has no written creed, but he differs very materially from Mr. 
Brooks in his teachings and practices, for he is a Unitarian. And 
here is a third man, claiming to believe the Bible, ivithout a written 
creed, but agreeing with neither Mr. Brooks nor the second man. 
He calls himself a Universalist. Now, when a man tells you he has 
no creed but the Bible, how are you to know whether he is a Chris- 
tian, Unitarian, Universalist, or Rationalist? In order, then, that men 
may know what we believe to be the truth as taught in the word of 
God, it is necessary for us to present them a formal statement of 
our belief. 

Having said this much with regard to creeds, I will now under- 
take to show that the Methodist Church presents the most catholic, 
and at the same time the most scriptural, creed of any church found 
in this land, while long experience and observation have demon- 
strated that her polity is wisely adapted to the purposes which she 
has in view. I will now read her Articles of Religion, and I ask your 
attention to them as I read ; and I want the brother to point out 
the one that contains a doctrine or a principle not taught in the word 
of God, either expressly or by implication : 



"SECTION III.— Articles of Religion. 

"1. Of Faith in the Holy Trinity. — There is but one living and 
true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wis- 
dom, and goodness ; the maker and preserver of all things, visible 
and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead, there are three per- 
sons of one substance, pow T er, and eternity — the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost. 

" 2. Of the Word, or Son of God, who was made very Man. — The 
Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one 
substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the 
blessed Virgin; so that the two whole and perfect natures — that is 
to say, the Godhead and manhood — were joined together in one per- 
son, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very 
man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to recon- 
cile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original 
guilt, but also for actual sins of men. 

" 3. Of the Resurrection of Christ. — Christ did truly rise again 
from the dead, and took again his body, with all things appertain- 
ing to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into 



MR. FITCH S FIRST ADDRESS. 333 

heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last 
day. 

"4. Of the Holy Ghost. — The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the 
Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty and glory, with 
the'Father and the Son, very and eternal God. 

" 5. The Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. — The Holy 
Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation ; so that what- 
soever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be 
required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of 
faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name 
of the Holy Scripture, we do understand those canonical books of 
the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any 
doubt in the Church. 

"6. Of the Old Testament. — The Old Testament is not contrary 
to the New ; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life 
is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between 
God and man, being God and man. Wherefore they are not to be 
heard who feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory 
promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, a*s touching 
ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil 
precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth, yet, 
notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience 
of the commandments which are called moral. 

" 7. Of Original or Birth Sin. — Original sin standeth not in the 
following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the 
corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered 
of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from orig- 
inal righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that 
continually. 

" 8. Of Free Will. — The condition of man after the fall of Adam 
is such, that he can not turn and prepare himself, by his own nat- 
ural strength and works, to faith, and calling upon God; wherefore, 
we have no power to do good works, pleasant and acceptable to God, 
without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have 
a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will. 

" 9. Of the Justification of Man. — We are accounted righteous 
before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ 
by faith, and not for our own works or deservings; wherefore, that 
we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and 
very full of comfort. 

"10. Of Good Works. — Although good works, which are the 
fruits of faith, and follow after justification, can not put away our 
sins, and endure the severity of God's judgments; yet are they pleas- 
ing and acceptable to God in Christ, and spring out of a true and 
lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evi- 
dently known as a tree is discerned by its fruit. 

"11. Of Works of Supererogation. — Voluntary works, besides 



334 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

over and above God's commandments, which are called works of 
supererogation, can not be taught without arrogancy and impiety. 
For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God 
as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake 
than of bounden duty is required : whereas Christ saith plainly, 
AVhen ye have done all that is commanded you, say, We are un- 
profitable servants. 

" 12. Of Sin After Justification. — Not every sin willingly com- 
mitted after justification is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and un- 
pardonable. Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be de- 
nied to such as fall into sin after justification : after we have received 
the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, 
and, by the grace of God, rise again and amend our lives. And 
therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as 
long as they live here; or deny the place of forgiveness to such a3 
truly repent. 

" 13. Of the Church. — The visible Church of Christ is a congre- 
gation of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, 
and the sacraments duly administered, according to Christ's ordi- 
nance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. 

" 14. Of Purgatory. — The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, 
pardon, worshiping, and adoration, as well of images as of relics, 
and also invocation of saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and 
grounded upon no warrant of Scripture, but repugnant to the word 
of God. 

"15. Of Speaking in the Congregation in such a Tongue as the 
People Understand. — It is a thing plainly repugnant to the word of 
God, and the custom of the primitive Church, to have public prayer 
in the church, or to minister the sacraments, in a tongue not under- 
stood by the people. 

"16. Of the Sacraments — Sacraments, ordained of Christ, are 
not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession; but rather 
they are certain signs of grace, and God's good will toward us, by 
the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, 
but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. 

" There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the 
Gospel ; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord. 

" Those five, commonly called sacraments, that is to say, Confirma- 
tion, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not 
to be counted for sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have 
partly grown out of the corrupt following of the apostles, and partly 
are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not the like 
nature of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, because they have not any 
visible sign or ceremony ordained of God. 

" The sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon, 
or to be carried about; but that we should duly use them. And in 
such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 335 

or operation ; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to 
themselves condemnation, as St. Paul saith, 1 Cor. xi : 29. 

" 17. Of Baptism. — Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and 
mark of difference, whereby Christians are distinguished from others 
that are not baptized ; but it is also a sign of regeneration, or the 
new birth. The baptism of young children is to be retained in the 
Church. 

"18. Of the Lord's Supper. — The Supper of the Lord is not only 
a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves 
one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by 
Christ's death : insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with 
faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of 
the body of Christ ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking 
of the blood of Christ. 

"Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and 
wine in the Supper of our Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ, 
but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the 
nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersti- 
tions. 

" The body of Christ is given, taken, and eafen in the Supper, 
only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the means whereby 
the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. 

" The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordi- 
nance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped. 

" 19. Of both Kinds. — The cup of the Lord is not to be denied 
to the lay people; for both the parts of the Lord's Supper, by 
Christ's ordinance and commandment, ought to be administered to 
all Christians alike. 

" 20. Of the one Oblation of Christ, finished upon the Cross. — The 
offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitia- 
tion, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole w r orld, both orig- 
inal and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that 
alone. Wherefore the sacrifice of masses, in the which it is com- 
monly said that the priest doth offer Christ for the quick and the 
dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, is a blasphemous fable and 
dangerous deceit. 

"21. Of the Marriage of Ministers. — The ministers of Christ are 
not commanded by God's law either to vow the estate of single life, 
or to abstain from marriage ; therefore it is lawful for them, as for 
all other Christians, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall 
judge the same to serve best to godliness. 

" 22. Of the Rites and Ceremonies of Churches. — It is not nec- 
essary that rites and ceremonies should in all places be the same, 
or exactly alike; for they have been always different, and may be 
changed, according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's 
manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whoso- 
ever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth 



336 EEOOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

openly break the rites and ceremonies of the Church to which he be- 
longs, which are not repugnant to the Word of God, and are or- 
dained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked 
openly, that others may fear to do the like, as one that offendeth 
against the common order of the Church, and woundeth the con- 
sciences of weak brethren. 

" Every particular Church may ordain, change, or abolish rites 
and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to edification. 

" 23. Of the Rulers of the United States of America. — The Presi- 
dent, the Congress, the general assemblies, the governors, and the 
councils of state, as the delegates of the people, are the rulers of the 
United States of America, according to the division of power made 
to them by the Constitution of the United States, and by the con- 
stitution of their respective States. And the said States are a sov- 
ereign and independent nation, and ought not to be subject to any 
foreign jurisdiction.* 

*[As far as it respects civil affairs, we believe it the duty of Chris- 
tians, and especially all Christian ministers, to be subject to the 
supreme authority of the country where they may reside, and to use 
all laudable means to enjoin obedience to the powers that be ; and, 
therefore, it is expected that all our preachers and people, who may 
he under any foreign government, will behave themselves as peace- 
able and orderly subjects.] 

" 24. Of Christian Men's Goods. — The riches and goods of Chris- 
tians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of 
the same, as some do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man 
ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the 
poor according to his ability. 

" 2o. Of a Christian Man's Oath. — As we confess that vain and 
rash swearing is forbidden Christian men by our Lord Jesus Christ 
and James his apostle, so we judge that the Christian religion doth 
not prohibit, but that a man may swear when the magistrate re- 
quireth, in a cause of faith and charity, so it be done according to 
the prophet's teaching, in justice, judgment, and truth." 

These are our Articles of Religion. You probably observed, while 
I was reading them, that they ignore all the controverted questions 
that are discussed between the Protestant denominations of the 
world. I venture to say that no doctrine is contained in them not 
found in the word of God. You might add more to them, but you 
can not take any thing from them, without impairing the scriptural 
doctrines contained in them. I propose to present these Articles 
of Religion — this summary of doctrine— in contrast w T ith the tenets 
of other denominations, to show you that we have the most fea- 
sible basis for a union of Protestant Christians anywhere to be 
found — a basis on which they can more readily unite than any that 
can be found elsewhere. I will say nothing about the doctrines of 



MR. FITCH'S FIRST ADDRESS. 337 

the Episcopal Church, as there is but little probability that there 
will ever be a union upou the basis occupied by that Church. 

I ought to remark, before proceeding further, that if there ever is 
a union of Protestant Christians, it must be upon the creed or basis 
of some existing Church. The cardinal doctrines of religion, as 
held by the evangelical Churches are stated in some of the creeds as 
clearly and correctly, probably, as it is possible to state them ; and 
it is undoubtedly true that no more scriptural, spiritual, or orthodox 
Church will be organized than some of those already in existence. 

The polity of the Episcopal Church is not adapted to the rapid 
promulgation of the Gospel, especially among the poor, and in 
sparsely settled districts ; therefore, I contend that its polity does 
not present the feasible basis of union for Protestant Christians that 
the Methodist Church does. 

Upon examining the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, I find 
taught, in her Confession, some things with regard to election and 
reprobation that will not be readily received by all persons. But 
the belief of these things is not essential to salvation, even if they 
are true, for the opinion of any man with reference to these doc- 
trines, if they be true, does not affect his moral condition or rela- 
tions to God. For, if a man is foreordained to eternal life from 
all eternity, or reprobated by the will and purpose of God, it matters 
but little into what church organization he may go. His* church 
relations in this world do not affect his condition and his relation- 
ship to God. Our articles of religion ignore these questions of elec- 
tion and reprobation. 

Again: Our Presbyterian brethren, are exclusive affusionists. I, 
as a Methodist, might unite with them, notwithstanding their ideas 
of election and reprobation, because we agree with them upon the 
cardinal doctrines, and the mode of baptism. But the Baptkts and 
Christians can not unite with them, because they contend for exclusive 
immersion. Again : So far as the cardinal doctrines of religion are 
concerned, there is but little difference between the Methodists and 
Baptists, as may be seen by comparing their Confession of Faith 
with our Articles of Religion ; but they will not receive either Method- 
ists or Presbyterians on their baptism. Before we can unite with 
them, we must give up our idea of affusion, as well as infant bap- 
tism. Presbyterians, who believe in affusion only, infant baptism, 
aud infant church membership, together with many others who hold 
with them in these doctrines, can never unite with the Baptist Church 
without compromising principles *dear to them, and which they be- 
lieve to be taught in the Word of God. 

What is the position of our Christian brethren f They advocate 
the same exclusive mode of baptism, and oppose infant baptism and 
infant church-membership. They might receive the Baptists, and 
those Methodists who have been immersed, or who believe in im- 
mersion, but they will not receive those who have been baptized by 
29 



338 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

affusion, and every affusionist has to compromise this principle be- 
fore he can unite with them upon any basis. They claim to be 
on the basis of the Bible. We also claim to be on the basis of the 
Bible. So do the Presbyterians. What right have they to require 
us to surrender our rights of judgment and conscience, to compro- 
mise our feelings and belief with reference to these things, and sub- 
mit to them, when w T e feel that we have the same divine authority 
and the same scriptural sanction for our belief and practice that they 
have for theirs? 

They meet us here with an argument like this : "You recognize 
immersion as baptism, therefore you can unite with us upon our 
immersion." I tell you again that we do not believe in immersion as 
baptism as they believe in it. They believe that immersion is bap- 
tism, because it is immersion, and if there is no immersion, there is 
no baptism. We believe that immersion is baptism simply because 
water is brought into contact with the person while the formula of 
baptism is pronounced over that person. There is just the difference 
between us. We admit that it may be baptism, not because it is 
immersion, but because water is applied in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. But we think we have a more excellent mode, 
a more scriptural mode, a more appropriate and significant mode, 
one that is better adapted to all the climates of this world, and to 
all conditions of human society. So, then, we have to give up some 
principle, compromise some article of our belief, before we can unite 
with the brother's church. But even if we were willing to deny 
ourselves our rights with reference to the mode of baptism, when we 
take our children by the hand, and our infants in our arms, and in 
obedience to a positive law of God, bring them to the church in order 
to have them recognized as belonging to the kingdom of God, they 
refuse to admit them into the church and fold of Christ. And do 
you think that infant baptism is not dear to our hearts? 

Not -long since I read a little pamphlet in which a union between 
the Protestant denominations was brought about after a number of 
discussions and investigations, without any thing being said upon 
the subject of infant baptism. I solemnly declare to you that there 
is nothing taught in the Methodist Church, nothing in this world 
dearer to my heart than infant baptism. I would give up almost 
any thing else I would pour out my blood, and surrender all my 
political rights, and consent to be exiled through the remainder of 
my life, rather than give up a principle so dear to my heart. There 
can never be a union, then, upon the basis presented by this Church, 
and it is useless to talk about it. The idea of two millions and a 
half of the Protestant world expecting nearly eighteen millions to 
compromise their principles, and surrender their tenets of religion, 
and their private judgment, in order that they may unite upon what 
these brethren consider a Bible basin, is preposterous. Sir, if you 
want to be baptized by affusion, come along, and we will receive 



MR. FITCHS FIRST ADDRESS. 3S\) 

you. You have a right to judge of these matters yourselves. You 
stand or fall by your owu decision. You are responsible to your 
own conscience and God for what you do in this thing, and it is 
not our prerogative to interfere with your judgment. We have no 
right to interpret and understand the Scriptures for any man, or to 
prescribe the mode in which he shall perform a duty that he owes 
to God and not to us. If you want to bring your children into 
covenant with God, we have no authority to prohibit you from doing 
so. If you want to be immersed, come along, and we will allow you 
to exercise the right of private judgment, and follow the dictates of 
your consciences. We will not require you to compromise any 
principle of religion or of belief you entertain with regard to this 
thing. We baptize every one by immersion who may desire it, 
because we are not authorized to impose affusion upon any one, and, 
vice versa. We do not compel you to bring your children into the 
church. You compel us, though, to leave our children out of the 
fold. We will teach you your duty in regard to this thing, but will 
not require it to be done by penalties. Here, then, is a broad basis 
of union, a creed that ignores all those questions that are immaterial 
— so far as being essential to salvation are concerned — a broad, lib- 
eral, catholic basis, that requires no man to compromise any of his 
religious opinions upon these subjects. This much with reference to 
the doctrines of the Church. 

I call your attention to the polity of our Church. I mean, by her 
polity, those prudential arrangements that she has adopted for the 
promulgation of the Gospel, for the inculcation of the truths of 
religion. 

Yesterday my worthy opponent inveighed against the polity of 
the Methodist Church South in the appointment of Bishops or Super- 
intendents, for which he says we claim high authority. We recog- 
nize as scriptural only two orders in the ministry — those of elder or 
presbyter, and deacon. I am just as high in order, so far as the 
Scriptures are concerned, as any Methodist bishop. But if we, as 
a matter of polity and prudential arrangement, choose to appoint 
one of our men, or a dozen of them, as general superintendents of 
the entire work, who shall say that we contravene any law of God 
in this matter? It is nothing more than our polity, a prudential 
arrangement, which we contend contravenes no law of God, aud 
which long experience and observation have demonstrated to be 
profitable to the Church. 

I think her itinerant system is one of the best features of her pol- 
ity; by this means her immense forces are widely distributed, and 
used effectively in evangelizing the world, and in bringing men to 
Christ, and to his salvation. The Methodist Church is the youngest- 
church in this land, except that of my brother here, and yet she 
numbers to-day, in all her different bodies, 2,280,000 communicants 
or members ; while the Baptist Church, which is the next largest, nuin- 



340 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

bers about 1,200,000. The Presbyterians number about 900,000; 
the Episcopal Church 178,000; and the Christian Church 500,000. 
According to those statistics which I presented the other day, and 
to which the brother so seriously objected, reported at the Evan- 
gelical Alliance, held in Germany in 1868, the brother's Church 
was computed at about 350,000, and that, I think, is about the 
truth in regard to the membership of that Church. Yet when I 
referred to the membership of that Church yesterday, estimating it 
at 500,000 (and he will not put it higher than that), he objected to 
it. If success indicates any tiling with reference to the practice and 
polity of the Methodist Church, then the unprecedented and unpar- 
alleled increase of that church is significant of the fact that her 
doctrines are sound, wise, and scriptural, and that her polity is a 
sound one. A little more than a century old, and numbering over 
2,500,000 members! What a grand and glorious career is open 
before her! Our accessions last year amounted to nearly 130,000, a 
fact which alone would indicate the soundness of her polity. 

But the brother objected to our polity, because he can not find a 
" Thus saith the Lord " for our itinerant system, nor for our bishops, or 
general superintendents. This is simply an office to which they are 
elected, and not an order superior to that of a 'presbyter, or elder. 
He may object to all these, because we are not able to give a "Thus 
saith the Lord" for them. We do not claim that they are authorized 
by the word of God, but we claim simply that they do not contravene 
any law of God, and that the success which marks the career of our 
Church, is evidence of the wisdom and the adaptedness of her polity 
to the spread of the Gospel. 

Has the brother no prudential arrangements in his Church un- 
authorized by the word of God? I call upon him to show a " Thus 
saith the Lord" for a Sabbath-school, for a regular prayer-meeting, 
and numerous other things which they practice, and which they have 
found to be profitable. When he objects to our polity because it is 
of human origin, and has nothing but human authority to commend 
it to the attention of the world, I would like to have him inquire 
whether his own Church has not prudential arrangements not directly 
and positively authorized by the word of God. 

The Articles of Religion of our Church are all based upon the Bible. 
They teach nothing more than is taught in the Bible. They do not 
cover the entire ground, and therefore there are principles contained 
in the New Testament that are not found in them. They might 
teach more, but teach less they could not. Her polity, as adminis- 
tered, has proven by its success the wisdom of its builders, or origina- 
tors. My friend will tell you that there have been schisms and divisions 
in the Methodist Church, and that it is folly to talk about union on 
the basis of our articles or tenets of religion. To be sure we have 
had our little family broils, but is not this a thing of frequent oc- 
currence in the history of the Church? There is not a Church 



MR. FITCH'S FIR3T ADDRESS. 341 

existing to-day upon earth, and there never has been one, that has 
not been troubled in this way. We find from the New Testament 
that Paul and Barnabas on one occasion differed, and that they sepa- 
rated, and refused to operate together. They had started out upon 
a tour of evangelization, and because Barnabas desired to take Mark 
with him, who had forsaken Paul in an emergency upon another 
occasion, Paul refused his consent for Mark to accompany them, 
and the contention became sharp between them, and they parted, 
Paul taking with him Silas, and Barnabas Mark. 

{Time Expired.) 



342 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Mr. Fitch admits, at last, that they have had a little family 
quarrel in his Church — a little one. And yet, this little family quarrel 
he speaks of has assumed immense proportions, spreading all over 
this great country, and has divided his Church into two distinct sec- 
tions — Northern and Southern Methodists — who are contending 
against each other with a zeal and animosity unequaled by any thing 
else to be witnessed on this continent. Still, it is all a little family 
quarrel, because it happened to be among Methodists. My friend 
would have you believe that these little family quarrels are all right, 
or, at least, not to be seriously reprehended when in his Church. He 
adverts to the difficulty that took place, long centuries ago, between 
two preachers, Paul and Barnabas, and says that they separated, one 
going in one direction, and the other in another direction. This sepa- 
ration, he would have you believe, justifies the division in his Church. 
Now, I suppose one went north, and the other went south; the follow- 
ers of the one who went south styled themselves Southern Methodists, 
while the followers of the one who went north, called themselves 
Northern Methodists. Why does he allude to Saul and Barnabas, 
and their troubles, unless to impress upon your minds the conviction 
that their separation justifies the division in his Church? Northern 
and Southern Methodists are as distinct, in every sense of the word, 
as any two bodies in this country. The work of Paul and Barnabas 
was very different from the one they are engaged in, as the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church South. 
Paul and Barnabas separated, it is true; but both of them continued, 
from that time until they died, in the established Church of Christ, 
and never once thought of dividing the body of Christ. Now 7 , there 
is a vast difference between the two. 

I confess to you that I am a little surprised at the result of the 
speech we have heard this morning. I have long known that my 
friend Mr. Fitch had, in his estimation, made a wonderful discovery 
in this matter. He is the only Methodist preacher that I have ever 
heard of, who has discovered that the Methodist creed presents a 
feasible basis for the union of all Protestant Christians. He has 
been preaching this all over the country, and I expected, on this 
occasion, that the gentleman w'ould have overwhelmed us with his 
argument, and that it would have been such a demonstration as 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 343 

would have carried conviction to the hearts of a good many, at least, 
in this audience. 

But the gentleman has attempted but one argument, and has oc- 
cupied nearly half his time in reading his creed, with which, I pre- 
sume, nearly every body in the house is familiar, except his own 
members, who say they do not read it. When he discussed this 
subject some time ago, I asked a friend what Mr. Fitch's argument 
was on this question. "Why," said he, " his argument is, that they 
are the most accommodating set of people in the world. It does not 
make any difference to them what you do, so far as baptism is con- 
cerned, for they will accommodate you just any way you please." 
They do not care to stop to speak a word on this question. 

Our Presbyterian friends, he says, practice only affusion, and 
of course, Baptists can not unite with them. I could not but be 
amused at the way my friend walked along here. He has been 
pleading charity on all occasions, and appealing to the sympa- 
thies of other parties, and you have observed how cautious 
he has been, lest he should offend some of these brethren. I 
do not want to offend any body, but I have nothing to keep back. 
My friend walked exceedingly cautious among the Baptists and 
Presbyterians. I do not think his track will show what impression 
he has left behind him. I do not believe he has made an impres- 
sion on a single soul in this house. If, as he says, the Presbyterians 
boldly say that affusion, and affusion only, is baptism, and practice 
that and nothing else, they differ this much from his preachers. 
They do not villify immersionists, and say all manner of evil things 
about immersion ; ridicule it, and render it just as ridiculous as they 
can, and then turn around and immerse the people. In that de- 
gree, at least, they are superior to him. My friend would like to 
accommodate himself to the position, but to do so, he must sacrifice 
all consistency. Now, then, in so far as this question is concerned, 
I think the Presbyterians are at least consistent in the case. If im- 
mersion is not baptism, say so, and squarely deny it, as I under- 
stand brother Hiner did the other day. If the word of God teaches 
it, say so, and let us not stand and hold our hands, saying, "Come 
along, so we get you, it does not make any difference how it is done." 
The Presbyterians, according to his own logic, can not go to him, 
because they say that affusion alone is baptism. But he practices 
immersion, which they say is not baptism. The Baptists can not 
go there, because they practice immersion only. Mr. Fitch says 
''sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, all are baptism, and here you 
may come, without sacrificing your religious belief in any one case." 

Now, a word upon this question of conscience. My friend 
believes that immersion is baptism — he says he does. He con- 
scientiously thinks that immersion is baptism. I do not care 
whether he thinks it — (because immersion is baptism) — or not. I 
think it, because immersion is baptism. Now, then, Mr. Fitch 



344 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

and all his people can come and stand with immersionists-, upon 
their immersion, because he thinks it is baptism, but immer- 
sionists do not think that sprinkling or pouring is baptism at all. 
There is no baptism in either one or the other. Sprinkling and 
pouring are not baptism at all. I solemnly believe this, as much as 
he does any thing that he has spoken Where, then, is the sacri- 
fice of conscience in this matter? Am I to go into a Church 
that practices this thing in the name of Jesus Christ, and call it 
baptism, when it is no baptism at all? What would become of my 
conscience, or that of my brethren, who would go and cooperate with 
a people who practice such a thing in the name of Jesus Christ? 
Yes, practice it in the name of the Son of God, as a solemn duty — 
as if God had ever ordained it! They call upon us to stand with 
them! It is impossible — absolutely impossible. 

Inasmuch as we have agreed to limit ourselves to three speeches 
each to-day, and my friend has presented no other argument, I will 
briefly submit my argument against his proposition. 

I wish first to consider the polity of his Church. I fully under- 
stand the difference between the polity and doctrine of his Church. 
I shall not be as extravagant as he, but I think I understand 
them well enough to walk through them. The question is: "The 
doctrine and polity of the Methodist Church present a feasible basis of 
union for all Protestant Christians" 

"All Christians" would have been better; the term "Protestant" 
is wholly superfluous. I proposed, as a substitute for "feasible 
basis," "scriptural basis." In rejecting the amendment, my friend 
has confessed judgment against himself. He does not claim that 
the basis to which he invites us to-day is a scriptural basis. I do 
not believe that outside of Rome there is a preacher to be found, 
except within the pale of my friend's Church, who would have the 
daring presumption to propose a union of all Christians upon a basis 
confessedly human and unscriptural. 

The proposition turns upon the word "feasible." Webster de- 
fines it thus: "That may be done, performed, executed, or ef- 
fected ; practicable. We say a thing is feasible when it can be 
clone by human means or agency. A thing may be possible, but not 
feasible." 

Did all the Churches think, with Mr. Fitch, that their respective 
polities were mere human contrivances, and without authority in the 
word of God, the thing then might be possible, but even then not 
feasible, for all others would simply say : " Ours is better than yours," 
(which, in my humble opinion, would be literally true,) and you may 
come to us. But when it is remembered that we all claim divine 
authority for our systems, the thing is not only impracticable, but 
absolutely impossible and preposterous. What! call upon the rest 
of the world to leave what they conceive to be a scriptural basis, and 
stand on one confessedly human. My friend was surely dreaming 



mr. brooks's first reply. 345 

when lie wrote that proposition ; and yet in his wakeful moments 
he felt its weakness, else why did he not accept the amendment 
•' scriptural," instead of "feasible" basis? This refusal to amend 
is a virtual acknowledgment of defeat on his part, and will be so 
received by every one in the house who is not a member of his 
Church. 

But since this proposition is the especial pet of my friend, and 
that Methodism may be seen in its true light, we propose a work of 
supererogation to-day. 

My first argument against this proposed union is, that it is im- 
practicable; first, because there is not one distinctive feature in the 
polity or doctrine of his Church for which he can show any scrip- 
tural authority or Apostolic precedent ; not one distinctive feature 
in the polity or doctrine of his Church for which he can show a pas- 
sage of Scripture, or even an Apostolic precedent. I put him to 
the test just here, and want him, in the beginning of this discussion, 
to find the tenet, and, if he can, show his authority for it in the word 
of God. By this I do not mean any thing he read this morning from 
his creed, or any thing else which is not peculiar to Methodism. 
If he does not succeed, can he have the face to ask the Protestant 
world to leave the truth and come to him, when he has not one dis- 
tinctive divine tenet to offer them ? If he can not do it, then, I 
charge him with the terrible crime of building up a schism in the 
Church of God, as causeless and groundless as the Roman Apostasy. 
Does he tell me that they have truth in their Church ? Yes, and so 
has Rome; but has he truth which we do not have? 

The scriptural truth which he has is to be found elsewhere 
among Protestants, and he can not even justify a plea for union un- 
less he has scriptural truth that we do not possess. This he can 
not show. Then, if we accede, we go simply to his human abstrac- 
tions or opinions. No, sir, we go to nothing but the Bible. Show 
>us that you have discovered one single truth that we do not possess, 
and we promise to accept it ; or that your system is divine in all its 
parts, and we will go in a body to your ranks before the sun goes 
down. 

We can not accept this proposition, because, in the second place, 
Methodism is confessedly a human institution throughout. We saw, 
on yesterday, that "John Wesley was, under God, the founder of 
Methodism;" that, in his own language, he was "the father of the 
whole family." Again: That Methodism was not "built upon the 
foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief 
corner-stone," but "upon the experience of along series of years ; as 
also upon the observations and remarks we have made upon ancient 
and modern churches." 

Now, in harmony with all this, my friend has told us that Jesus 
Christ came into this world not to destroy the Jewish Church, but 
rather to reform it — to fit it up anew, and to prepare it for the w 7 ork 



346 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

he came into the world to accomplish. In accordance with this also, I 
have been informed that the gentleman, in various places in the coun- 
try, has spoken of the reformation of the Savior as being upon a level 
with the reformations of Luther and Wesley; and that the object of 
that reformation was to prepare the Church for the great work of 
spreading the Gospel. More than that, he compared "these three 
reformations" with "some modern reformations." I suppose he al- 
luded to the reformation with which I stand identified when he spoke 
of modern reformations. If so, I would inform the gentleman that, 
though we esteem Mr. Campbell's a great work, I have never yet 
placed it on a level with that of the Savior, and have not dared' to 
draw any such comparison. I pray God that, should I ever become 
so demented as to do this, he will take this spirit from its frail tene- 
ment of clay before I blacken my whole ministerial life by such ut- 
terances. We are not surprised that these reformations should be 
compared to that of Christ, when grave ministers of the Gospel can 
speak of him in jest as a Campbellite. He is no more than a re- 
former, in their estimation. Tell me not that men who believe that 
Jesus the Christ is the incarnate Son of God can speak of him thus, 
and laugh at the "sharpness" of -the utterance, as did these grave (?) 
dignitaries of the Methodist Church who sit round us to-day. A man 
who loves him as he ought to love him will never speak his name 
except in a manner reverential and humble in the sight of God. 

But does my friend suppose it is possible for us to unite with him 
upon this human and unscriptural basis? "Tell it not in Gath; 
publish it not in the streets of Askalon, lest the daughters of the 
Philistines rejoice ; lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph." 

Again: A union upon this basis is impracticable to Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists, because, in the first place, they esteem their 
polities better, and scriptural. The Presbyterian believes his polity 
is scriptural, and the Congregationalist is equally sure that his is 
scriptural ; and yet my friend invites them to give up their polities 
and unite upon one, which he confesses is not scriptural; for, he con- 
fessed this in his speech of this morning. A divine king and king- 
dom, with a human government, never had being in the brain of 
any sane man except a Roman priest or a Methodist circuit rider. 
Christ established his Church in the world and gave it no govern- 
ment ! This is to degrade Christ below the level of Moses, and every 
human lawgiver of all time. Christ prayed for the unity of the 
Church, and left it in such a condition as inevitably to invite division 
and strife ! ! Impossible in the very nature of the case. 

In what department is the government defective? The lawgiver? 
The gentleman may prefer Wesley, but we prefer Christ. Is it in 
the laws of naturalization, or the means adopted to convert the 
world? The gentleman may think, as Taylor said Wesley felt, 
"that this (Apostolic Church), though right to a pin, if it did not 
succeed, must be regarded as an absurdity and a hinderance to the 



mr. brooks's first reply. 347 

truth." But we believe that Christ was even wiser than Wesley, 
and that the laws regulating his kingdom are superior to the utter- 
ances of the sage of Oxford. Are the laws of the Bible, regulating 
the piety and morality of his subjects, defective? My friend will not 
c'aim that they are. Does he affirm that Christ has not appointed 
officers to administer his government? If so, I invite the gentle- 
man's attention to what the great Apostle of the Gentiles has said on 
the subject, as quoted in your hearing yesterday. In his church 
he has officers, and "every joint is supplied," to the edification of 
the church, "to the building of it up in Christ." But the apostles 
are in that church now, as ever, and we saw on yesterday that the 
only remaining officers were deacons and elders. None others are 
named. JExpressio unius est exclusio alterius — " The naming of one 
excludes all others" — is a universal principle of law. When the Con- 
stitution of the United States declares that "the executive power of 
the United States shall be vested in a President of the United States 
of America," all others are excluded from the exercise of that power. 
When Jesus said : " Go, preach the Gospel to every creature," he 
excluded the preaching of every thing else. When he commanded 
them to baptize in his name, it was equivalent to forbidding them 
to baptize in any other name. So, when he named elders and dea- 
cons, and laid down specifically their qualifications, it was a posi- 
tive exclusion of all other officers, as much as though he had said : 
You shall have no other officers. 

But let us look at the logic of the gentleman's declaration, " that 
Christ and his apostles gave no fixed and definite government to the 
Church." 

A body without a fixed and definite government is an unorganized 
body. The body of Christ has no fixed and definite government ; 
therefore it is an unorganized body. But the gentleman will tell 
us that they have organized it. Well, every body organized by man 
is a human body. The Methodist Episcopal Church was organized 
by man ; therefore the Methodist Episcopal Church is a human 
body. Such is the result of the logic of my friend. Upon this 
subject I want to read a brief extract from his own great writer, Mr. 
Watson. He says : "Thus, government flows necessarily from the 
very nature of the institution of the Christian Church ; and, since 
this institution has the authority of Christ and his apostles, it is not 
to be supposed that its government was left unprovided for ; and if 
they have, in fact, made such provision, it is no more a matter of 
mere option with Christians, whether they will be subject to govern- 
ment, than that it is optional with them to confess Christ by becom- 
ing its members." — Theological Institutes, vol. 2, p. 573. 

You may now understand why the gentleman sincerely thinks we 
can'unite upon his basis. With him the Church is a human affair, 
vud as his polity constitutes the most potent of all human hie- 
rarchies, except that of Rome, which differs a little from his, he 



348 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

honestly thinks his^ is the best. Much as he thinks of his system, 
the gentleman must excuse us. We prefer a divine rather than a 
human government, and upon this subject we venture to speak for 
every living soul in this audience, outside the gentleman's church. 
The thing is impossible, Mr. Fitch ; you had best give it up at 
once. 

My third objection to this proposed union is, that there is not an 
officer in the Methodist Church whose name and work correspond 
with those of the Apostolic Church. In name or work they are un- 
known to the New Testament. We do not read, in that book, of 
stewards, class leaders, circuit riders, and presiding elders, nor of 
deacons, elders, and bishops, in the sense in which they use the 
terms. There were no diocesan bishops in the primitive Church ; 
no elders presiding over a large number of churches, or elders or 
deacons acting as sub-pastors for one, two, or more congregations. 
All this constitutes a part of the improvement that Wesley made 
on the Apostolic Church. I demonstrated, yesterday, that elders, 
pastors, and bishops were, in the New Testament, one and the same 
order, called elders sometimes, because they were generally elderly 
men ; overseers, or bishops, because they ruled the Church ; and 
pastors, because they led and fed the flock; and that over each con- 
gregation a plurality of elders presided, as at Jerusalem, Ephesus, 
and in Crete. There was, then, a plurality of elders in every church, 
and not a shade of authority for such an arrangement as my friend 
presents in this human affair of his. As for deacons, their business 
was with the temporal affairs of the Church, and there was a plu- 
rality in every church: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of 
Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, 
with the bishops and deacons. " — Philippians i : 1. 

There were, then, in that church no diocesan bishops, or elders. As 
much as my friend has said, and as charitable as he proclaims himself 
to be, this morning, still he confesses the polity of the Methodist 
Church to be unscriptural. This is virtually to yield the question. 

In the fourth place, we can not accept the proposition, because 
his polity is a spiritual despotism, and in its tendencies antagonistic 
to civil and religious liberty. I know, fellow- citizens, this is a grave 
charge, but it is my solemn conviction, and I beg of you to hear me 
patiently on this point. We invite a calm review of their system of 
government, and they themselves shall be judges. Beginning, then, 
with the class leaders, we ascend through the various grades of office 
to the king upon his throne: 

"Class Leaders are to advise, reprove, comfort, and exhort the 
people as, in their judgment, they think proper, and to report all 
that they can not control to the circuit rider." We have here all 
the powers vouchsafed to any New Testament officer. Of course, 
then, the class appoints this officer. Not so fast. The circuit rider 
appoints and removes him at pleasure. It follows, then, of course, 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 349 

that he is retained no longer than he does the will of his spiritual 
master. 

"The Circuit Rider is to receive, try, and expel members, ac- 
cording to the ' Discipline ; ' to appoint all the leaders, and change 
them when he thinks it necessary ; to give an account of his charge, 
every quarter, to his presiding elder." 

That there may be no misunderstanding about the powers of this 
officer, we remark, first, that the reception of members is exclusively 
in his hands; second, in the trial of members, the "Discipline" 
clothes him with power to pack the jury, the accused only being al- 
lowed to except to two out of five members of the jury, or in that 
ratio. The Preacher is to act also as judge, to expound or decide 
all questions of law. An appeal, indeed, may be made to the quar- 
terly conference; but this, again, is composed of his creatures, the 
class-leaders whom he appoints, the stewards whom he nominates, 
and a few local preachers uuder his supervision, and much depend- 
ent on his good-will. How much better, then, is the case when the 
appeal is made ! The "Discipline" always takes good care to keep 
the power in the hands of the clergy. 

You are ready to ask, In reason's name, who appoints the man 
possessed of such despotic power? Surely, the people elect him? 
No ; the bishop sends him to them nolens volens. The bishop ap- 
points by the advice of his cabinet. 

"Presiding Elders are, first, to obey implicitly their bishops; 
second, to take charge of all the elders, deacons, traveling and local 
exhorters, in their districts; third, to change, receive, and suspend 
preachers in their districts during the intervals of conference ; fourth, 
to decide all questions of law that may come up in the regular busi- 
ness of the quarterly conference ; fifth, to enforce every part of the 
' Discipline,' human as it is, and to oversee the spiritual and tempo- 
ral business of the Church. He also is appointed and removed at 
the discretion of the bishop. 

"The Bishop appoints elders, preachers, and other officers, and re- 
moves them at will. He decides all questions of law, and hears and 
decides all appeals of the quarterly conference on questions of law." 

Now, any government, where the legislative, executive, and judi- 
cial functions are vested in the same hands, is a despotism of the 
most terrible type. Methodist preachers make their laws in general 
conference, execute them, and sit on the bench to interpret them or 
decide their import; therefore Methodism is a despotism of the worst 
type. To illustrate by what our Government might be, under such 
circumstances : Whenever the Congress of the United States usurps 
the power of the executive and judicial departments of this Govern- 
ment, and sits in judgment upon the bench, then it will be a despot- 
ism; such as is the Methodist Episcopal Church South. A grander 
despotism does not exist on the face of the earth. Such is the polity 
of my friend's Church, and yet he gravely invites us to leave our 



350 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

scriptural basis of union and stand upon this. Lest he should think 
I have spoken without due consideration, I want to read from one 
who fully understands the matter. I invite your attention to Bishop 
Bascom's "Declaration of the Mights of. Man" as quoted by Mr. 
Graves in a work I hold in my hand, entitled ''The Great Iron 
Wheel." Bishop Bascom was a distinguished bishop of his own 
Church; and how he took the oaths necessary to become a bishop, 
after writing this, I can not see. But I will read you what he says: 

"Art. 6. A government uniting the legislative, judicial, and ex- 
ecutive powers in the hands of the same men is an absurdity in the- 
ory, and, in practice, tyranny. The executive power, in every gov- 
ernment, should be subordinate to the legislative, and the judicial 
independent of both. Whenever, therefore, it happens that these 
three departments of government are in the hands of the same body 
of men, and these men not the representatives of the people — first 
making the laws, then executing them, and, finally, the sole judges 
of their own acts, there is no liberty ; the people are virtually en- 
slaved, and liable to be ruined at any time. In a government, civil 
or ecclesiastical, where the same men are legislators, administrators, 
and judges, in relation to all the laws, and every possible application 
of them, the people, whether well or ill-treated, are in fact slaves; for 
the only remedy against such despotism is revolt" (P. 281.) 

Again, in article 10, he says: "Whenever a Christian people 
place themselves under a ministry who claim the right of thinking 
and deciding for them in matters of faith and morality, they are 
guilty of impiety, however unintentional, to the great Head of the 
Church." (P. 285.) 

Thus speaks Bishop Bascom ; and now, in the 15th article, is found 
his estimation of this system : "The natural and unavoidable tendency 
of a government of this description is vicious and demoralizing ; and 
such are the character and influence of all non-elective governments. 
The members of a community w T ho place themselves under the ex- 
clusive control of a few irresponsible persons as their sole masters 
in matters of government, thus tamely depriving themselves of the 
right of representation, and even of existence, except by expatria- 
tion, betray a criminal negligence of their best interests, and great in- 
attention to the general welfare; and all governments recognizing 
such a distinction contravene, necessarily, the influence of enlightened 
conviction and independent inquiry." (P. 287.) 

Such is the church polity of my friend, in the estimation of Bishop 
Bascom. And now I wish to read to you a passage, as quoted 
by Mr. Graves from Cookman, one of their most eloquent preach- 
ers. In his speeches (pp. 145-6), comparing Methodism to a wheel 
within a wheel, he says: 

"Now, sir, let us apply this to Methodism. The great iron wheel 
in the system is itinerancy; and truly it grinds some of us tremen- 
dously ! The brazen wheel, attached and kept in motion by the former, 



mr. brooks's first reply. 351 

is the local ministry ; the golden wheel, the doctrine and discipline of 
the Church, in full and. successful operation. Now, sir, it is evident 
that the entire movement depends upon keeping the great iron wheel 
of itinerancy constantly and rapidly rolling round. But, to be more 
specific, and to make an application of this figure to American 
Methodism, let us carefully note the admirable and astounding 
movements of this wonderful machine. You will perceive there 
are wheels within wheels. First, there is the great outer wheel of 
Episcopacy, which accomplishes its entire revolution once in four 
years. To this there are attached twenty-eight, smaller wheels styled 
annual conferences, moving around once a year ; to these are attached 
one hundred wheels designated presiding elders, moving twelve hun- 
dred other wheels, termed quarterly conferences, every three months ; 
to these are attached four thousand wheels, styled traveling preachers, 
moving round once a month, and communicating motion to thirty 
thousand wheels, called class leaders, moving round once a week, and 
who in turn, being attached to between seven and eight hundred thou- 
sand wheels, called members, give a sufficient impulse to whirl them 
round every day. O, sir, what a machine is this ! " (P. 157.) 

" 0, sir, what a machine is this!" I should say so. Now, then, 
according to Cookman, the Methodists are in the center of this wheel, 
and the bishops are outside, and these bishops are turning it round 
and round, while the members have no more liberty than the cogs 
and little wheels that are turned by the large wheel in your mill. 
It is an absolute and perfect despotism in every sense of that word. 
In the estimation of Bishop Bascom, the constitution of my friend's 
Church is a " mockery;" his government "an absurdity in theory, 
in practice, tyranny." The people " are virtually enslaved, and may 
be ruined at any time." He denounces their dominion over conscience 
as " the most absurd of all human pretenses," aud declares that "it 
libels the genius and charities of the New Testament;" that a people 
who place themselves under such a government "are guilty of im- 
piety, however unintentional." 

Again, he says, in another place : " The natural and unavoidable 
tendency of a government of this description is vicious and demoral- 
izing." Cookman proclaims it a machine of irresistible power. 

Now, that this is a dark and fearful picture, we certainly must 
admit; that it presents Methodism in a fearful aspect, we know ; but 
remember that Methodists have drawn this picture, and not your 
humble speaker. This same spirit of tyranny is manifested to-day, 
in the fact, already mentioned, that Northern Methodist bishops have 
taken and hold possession of meeting houses belonging to the South- 
ern bishops, and will not resign them to their rightful owners. But 
this is not because Northern bishops are worse than other men, but 
it is the result of their tyrannical and pernicious system of church 
polity. 

It would be a long step backward toward Rome, for Protestants 



352 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

to accept this polity as a basis of union. Rome originated the 
Episcopacy, the English Church retained it, and the Methodist 
Church adopted it in a form only modified by the political necessi- 
ties of this country. Her preachers, like those of Rome, profess to 
hold the keys of the kingdom. But this necessitates infallibility in 
all act, if not in theory. Hence, the divine right to rule and the de- 
nial of the right of private judgment. Do you, sir, object to the 
unscriptural polity of Rome? So does she to yours. To her tyran- 
nical system of government? Yours is equally tyrannical. Will 
you denounce her because of the assumptions of her clergy? They 
are no greater than yours. Will you protest against her unscrip- 
tural practices? You have just as many. To her liturgy? Re- 
member that in a great measure yours is borrowed from hers. 
Whence came your Friday fasts unless from Rome? No, Mr. Fitch, 
we can not go with you back to Rome. 

But, worse than all, like Rome, the Methodist Church claims the 
right to change and abolish rites and ceremonies; hence my next 
objection to this proposed union is drawn from the 22d Article of 
his creed. It says: "Every particular church may ordain, change, 
or abolish rites and ceremonies, so that all things may be done to 
edification." 

Webster defines ceremony: "Outward rite, external form in re- 
ligion." Rite: "The manner of performing divine or solemn serv- 
ice, as established by law, precept, or custom; formal act of re- 
ligion, or other solemn duty." Yet Mr. Fitch claims the right to 
change the ceremonies of the Church. Rome never claimed more 
than this. It was under this baseless claim that she changed the 
action of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. So the Bishop of 
Dublin declared, in a late debate with a prelate of the Church of 
England. Under this law, she introduced all her ritualistic ceremo- 
nies, and under the same assumed right, the human system of my 
friend was originated and put in practice. It is easy for the Ro- 
mans to decide what the primitive action was, because they admit 
the facts to which we called your attention on yesterday, to wit: 
That the apostles and primitive Church practiced immersion, and 
that sprinkling aud pouring were introduced by the authority of 
"the Church," which claims the right to change ordinances and cere- 
monies. But while my friend maintains the same right, he denies 
that the action of baptism has thus been changed. Rome candidly 
admits the change ; but Mr. Fitch attempts to defend his practice by 
an appeal to the word of God. 

The gentleman submitted some rules upon this question of bap- 
tism, the other day, and I want to submit one or two. It is an easy 
matter to submit a critical rule in a discussion like this, which is 
not in any of the standard works of the day, and of course no man 
is competent to decide upon a rule until he has investigated the case. 
I had not time then to determine its correctness, but I now deny 



mr. brooks's first reply. 353 

the truth of his rule, and will in turn submit a criticism bearing 
upon the point in question, and you may decide the matter when 
the debate is published. 

His rule is: "In order to take a person down into a thing, the 
preposition must be prefixed to the verb and precede the object." 
Hence, to have taken Philip and the eunuch down into the water, 
Luke should have said, " ekkatebeemn amphoteroi 'eis to hudor." 

Now, to this very learned and profound criticism we have to say, 
1st. That such a combination is utterly unknown in the Greek 
Scriptures. 2d. Katabaino eis invariably takes the subject down 
into the object. Mark xiii: 15: Mee katabato eis teen oikian (not 
go down into the house). So in Luke xviii : 14, John ii: 12, Acts 
vii : 15, Acts viii: 38, and so on to the end. 3d. In Acts viii: 38, 
katabaino eis is opposed to anabaino ek. Now, anabaino ek inva- 
riably means, "come up out of," and nothing else. See Eev. xiii: 
11, Dan. vii: 3, Rev. xi: 7, etc. If, then, anabaino ek brought 
them up out of the water, katabaino eis must necessarily have taken 
them down into the water. 4th. No scholar has ever called these 
principles in question. Now we leave his rules and ours for the judg- 
ment of the public when the discussion is published. 

Our seventh argument is based upon Art. 2 of his creed : "Christ 
truly suffered, was crucified, dt-ad and buried, to reconcile his Father 
to us." 

Now. we reject the whole thing. Christ was not crucified, nor i3 
it by his sufferings, or his agonies on the cross, that he is to reconcile 
the Father to the world. 

"God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son to 
die for it." Yet, Mr. Fitch will tell us, that his sufferings were in- 
tended to reconcile God to sinners. The Father loved sinners just 
as much before Christ died as afterward. Did the sufferings of 
Christ add any thing to the attributes of the infinite Father? Do 
the prayers of the Methodist Church add any thing to the infinite 
love of God? Certainly not. We are informed, in Romans iii: 26, 
that Christ's death enabled "God to be just, and yet the justifier of 
him that believeth in Jesus." In other words, the death of Christ 
had magnified the law 7 of God, and enabled him to extend mercy to 
a ruined and fallen world; and now we are to understand that God's 
law can not be trampled under foot with impunity, even though his 
infinite love for the world can only be measured by the condescen- 
sion of the Redeemer to the shame and sufferings of the cross. Peter 
says: "The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all 
should come to repentance." — 2 Peter iii : 9. God is not willing that 
men should perish ; God is willing to save the sinner. Then why all 
these entreaties at the mourner's bench, that God may become rec- 
onciled? Did not the Son of God say : " Come unto me, all ye that 
labor and are heavily laden." Has he not said, in the last book of 
the New Testament : "The Spirit and the bride say Come; and who- 



354 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

soever will let him come ? " Upon this unscriptural view of the 
atonement is based the entire mourner's-bench system peculiar to 
the Church of my friend ; hence the work of his Church and its min- 
istry, their prayers, agonies, and entreaties are to induce God to be 
willing to save sinners. The mission of the primitive Church was 
to induce men to come to Christ. 

The Apostle Paul gives us to understand, that through the minis- 
try of Christ, God is reconciling the world unto himself. This is the 
end of the apostolic ministry; for Paul says, in this passage : " We 
beseech you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." — 2 Cor. v: 
20. Now, here is one grand objection to a union upon the basis of 
his Church. Will he invite me to unite with a people who can not 
tell sinners what to do to be saved ? It would be a plain desertion of 
Divine truth to go to a people, who will call sinners to the mourners' 
bench, and yet can not tell them what to do to become citizens of 
the kingdom of Christ. 

Why, Mr. Fitch, do you not tell them what to do? On a certain 
occasion, one of these preachers said, of those at the mourner's 
bench: "Here are forty-four persons seeking religion ; and yet only 
four out of all these forty-four have gained the religion they seek. ,, 
Now, my dear friends, the Savior says : " Unto him that knocketh 
it shall be opened; and he that seeketh shall find." And yet, in 
this Methodist Church, they seek for days and weeks, and do not 
find that for which they seek. Why? Because their preachers do 
not know how to tell them to come to Christ. Do they say they 
understand the Gospel, and can tell men how to come into the king- 
dom of Christ? Then why not tell them, as Ananias did Saul, 
when he found him mourning over his sins, "Arise and be baptized, 
and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." They 
tell you that is Campbellism. Well, if it is Campbellism, it is also 
the word of God. Time makes no changes in the truth. It is one 
and the same thing, on this earth, forever. We object to all these 
practices, to that system of religion upon which this whole theory 
of human mediation is based. 

In the next place, an insuperable difficulty in the way of this 
union is infant baptism. He talks to you about his conscience com- 
pelling him to bring his infants into the kingdom of Christ. His 
conscience absolutely forbids that he should come without them. 
His conscience is a great matter. But he says we can come and 
unite with him. But our consciences absolutely forbid the bringing 
of infants into the Church. The practice of infant baptism we sol- 
emnly believe to be a sin — not only that, but the great sin of the 
Roman Apostasy. Is there no sacrifice of conscience for us to 
live under a system like this? Surely, my friend is dreaming. The 
Baptists believe infant, baptism sinful. We know these infants 
can not have faith, therefore it is sinful in the sight of God and 
man to baptize them. And yet we are asked to unite with him on 



MR. BROOKS'S FIRST REPLY. 355 

his creed, that teaches this practice. No, sir; we can not do it. On 
the other hand, if he will unite with the Christians, with those who 
reject his infant baptism, as soon as the children are old enough to 
come into the Church, they may then do so; and, if they should die 
before, they would be saved, according to his own admission. Then, 
if they die before baptism, what is to be lost by leaving them out 
until they come to years of responsibility? 

{Time Expired.) 



356 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR, FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

It seems to me, from the speech the brother made this morning, 
that he is not satisfied with the arguments which he advanced the 
other day upon the mode of baptism. To-day, when I attempt to 
show that the doctrine and polity of the Methodist Church present 
a feasible basis of union for Protestant Christians, he, in reply, presents 
a law of criticis7n by which he hopes to prove that both Philip and the 
eunuch went doim into the water. Well, if he is not satisfied of that 
fact, and if his people are not satisfied, I can not help it. I gave 
him a fair chance to prove it, but he seems to be conscious of having 
failed. 

He told you, in his speech, that I had been preaching all over this 
country the doctrines which I this morning proclaimed from this 
place. The gentleman makes some most wonderful discoveries, and 
this is one of the most astounding of them all. I solemnly tell him 
that I never preached a sermon on Christian union in my life — never. 
I dwelt upon the subject incidentally for about five minutes in a dis- 
course preached in this part of the country during the past year, 
but instead of preaching this matter all over the country, I have 
never preached a single discourse upon the subject. 

The gentleman animadverted upon our family difficulties. He 
inquired if Paul and Barnabas, when they parted, went the one in 
one direction establishing Methodist Churches North, and the other 
in a different direction, establishing Methodist Churches South f Does 
he not know that the term South, as appended to the name of our 
Church, designates nothing but locality ? When the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church separated, the separation was peaceable, like that of 
Abraham and Lot, the one body agreeing to be the Methodist 
Episcopal Church in the North, and the other agreeing to be the 
Methodist Episcopal Church in the South. 

The brother also commented upon the fact that I should call upon 
Christian people to unite with me in a church that had been so 
wonderfully disturbed by politics, and agitated by the commotions 
which have swept over the land. I would simply ask if the gentle- 
mau's church kept clear of all these difficulties during the late war 
through which we passed? I would like to inquire whether any 
of his denomination dismissed preachers because their politics did 
not suit them ? Were not some of the congregations of his denomi- 
nation served by two preachers of different politics? 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 357 

You will remember he excepted only to one of our articles, and 
the part to which he objected reads as follows : " Whereof is one 
Christ., very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, 
dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, 
not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men." 

He took the position, if I did not misapprehend his remarks, 
that Christ died simply to reconcile man to God, and that the 
great Father of the human family was already reconciled to man. 
I would like to inquire the meaning of such language as this: 
"God is angry with the sinner every day." I would like to know 
how that anger is turned aside, and how God is placated, so as to 
be gracious to sinful man, unless this is effected through the death 
of Christ. The doctrine is, therefore, according to the teachings of 
God's Holy Word. 

My friend read long extracts from several works, and told you 
that he read his speech because he was hoarse, and not able to 
speak extemporaneously. I shall not question his assertion. But 
does the gentleman not know that the representations of the 'polity 
of the Methodist Church, which he read this morning,' are incorrect 
and unfair? And I imagine if he would read Brownlow's "Exam- 
ination of the Great Iron Wheel," and see the many false spokes 
extracted, and the gross misrepresentations of the author from whom 
he has read, he would newr have the temerity to rise before an in- 
telligent audience and read from that "Great iron Wheel" again. 

I will now present you an analysis of the polity of the Methodist 
Church. If it is a despotism, then the best government upon the 
face of the earth is a despotism. Its ecclesiastical government is 
modeled after our republican form of government. We have but 
one legislative body. I have told you all along that the brother did 
not understand the Methodist Discipline — that he did not under- 
stand the government of the Methodist Church. The annual 
conference is not a legislative body. The law-making power of 
our Church is vested in the General Conference, composed equally 
of the clergy and laity. If you will turn to the fortieth page of the 
Discipline, you will find this question and answer: "Who shall 
compose the General Conference, and what are the regulations and 
powers belonging to it?" "The General Conference shall be com- 
posed of one clerical member for every twenty-eight members of 
each annual conference, and an equal number of lay members." 

So, then, instead of the government of the Methodist Church be- 
ing the despotism which my friend has represented it to be, we find 
that all powers, judicial, legislative, and executive, are vested in the 
General, Annual, and Quarterly Conferences, which are composed of 
both clergy and laity. 

Now, let us first inquire how these preachers are made. The first 
thing that is required of a man who desires to preach, is that he have 
"gifts and graces," and that man is recommended, by the society 



358 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of which he is a member, to the quarterly conference, for a license 
to preach the Gospel. Here, then, you see that the beginuing of all 
this power is with the people — the congregation. They take one 
of their number, and recommend him to the- quarterly conference 
as a suitable person to be licensed to preach, and. the quarterly 
conference, if satisfied with his qualifications, license him. But 
who compose the quarterly conference? The clergy alone? No, 
sir. The superintendents of the Sabbath-schools, the class-leaders, 
the stewards, and others, with the pastor and presiding elder, con- 
stitute the quarterly conference. The lay element predominates. 
Is there any despotism here? How are members tried, and ex- 
pelled, when found guilty, from our Church ? A brother — a member 
of the same congregation, must prefer a bill of charges, with speci- 
fications, against the offender, and present him with a copy of it, 
and then he has the right to be tried before a committee, partially 
of his own choosing, or before the whole church. All the preacher 
does is to preside at the trial, and hear the testimony. He does 
not even decide upon the case, but the committee, if the member is 
tried before a committee, or the entire church, if the man is before 
the whole church, pronounces the man guilty, and then, all the 
preacher does is to read the sentence of the church against him by 
which he is expelled. Is there any more republican form of eccle- 
siastical government than that in this country? Is there any des- 
potism there? When a member is tried and expelled from Mr. 
Brooks's Church, the case closes. The man has no appeal. But 
it is not so in the Methodist Church. If that brother feels that he 
has been aggrieved, or thinks that the trial through which he has 
passed was not a fair one, he appeals to the quarterly conference, 
composed of the pastor and presiding elder, the stewards, class- 
leaders, and superintendents of Sunday-schools, and has a rehearing. 
If the quarterly conference confirms the decision of the church, 
the man can not return to the church ; but if it chooses, it can set 
aside the verdict of the committee or the church, and restore the 
man to his original position. This is the way men are tried and 
expelled from our Church. 

In my friend's Church the whole thing depends upon the will of 
the people. The congregation may expel a man to-day simply from 
prejudice, and he has no appeal, none whatever; and in their caprice, 
they may receive him into their society again to-morrow. Our Church 
has an appellant court based upon republican principles, and there 
is not an element of despotism in it. The preacher who is a member 
of the annual conference is also tried, when delinquent, by his peers, 
and if convicted, if he is dissatisfied with his trial, he appeals to the 
General Conference, and obtains a rehearing, and the verdict against 
him is either affirmed by that tribunal, or reversed. And yet this is 
the terribly despotic system which the brother denounces with such 
vehemence. 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 359 

Let me now trace out the analogies between our Church govern- 
ments and our Federal government. The powers of the quarterly- 
conference are analogous to the powers of the circuit court. The 
annual conference sustains the relation to the General Conference that 
the State legislature does to the Federal government, with the ex- 
ception that it is not a law-making body. Our General Conference, 
composed of an equal number of preachers and laymen, meets every 
four years, and it is the only law-making power that our Church has. 
Our annual conference meets every year, and is composed of clergy- 
men and laymen — about one layman to every four preachers; it is 
not a law-making body. It does nothing of this kind. It takes over- 
sight of the preachers, assigning them to "their respective fields of 
labor, and executing discipline against offenders. The quarterly 
conference is not a law-making body, but has its legitimate work, 
which I shall not stop to define. There is no despotism and no op- 
pression in any part of the system. If there is, then our Federal 
government, that is admitted by all parties in the land to be one of 
the most republican and best governments upon the face of the earth, 
is a despotism that grinds its subjects into the very dust with its tyr- 
anny and its oppressions. No man can say that he has ever been 
oppressed in the Methodist Church. Some renegades, who have 
been expelled from it, have represented it as tyrannical, despotic, 
and oppressive ; but if you will examine their history, you will find 
that the difficulty is with them, and not with the Church. 

The brother said that we had not an officer in our Church whose 
name and work corresponded with those of the Apostolic Church. 
Surely he does not know what he is saying, for he certainly would 
not knowingly make such an assertion. I excuse the remark upon 
the ground that I believe him to be ignorant of these things. To 
be sure, he accuses me of reading the Discipline instead of the Bible; 
and his people are always twitting our people with not reading the 
Bible. I imagine that we read the Bible quite as much as any 
other people in the land ; we do not neglect it on account of the Dis- 
cipline. But I am satisfied that the brother does not read it as much 
as he ought, or he would understand it better. We only claim two 
orders in our Church, as of divine authority, those of elder and 
deacon. 

We are told, by my friend, that the deacons in the Apostolic 
Church had nothing to do with spiritual affairs, that they attended 
only to the temporal affairs of the Church. Stephen w r as a deacon, 
and he preached the unsearchable riches of Christ. Yet it is claimed 
that the deacons in the Apostolic Church attended only to the tem- 
poral or secular affairs of the churches with which they were con- 
nected. 

He also asserted that elders did not preach in the Apostolic 
Church. Some of the preachers were both elders and apostles, and 
as elders they preached. Both elders and deacons preached in the 



360 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Apostolic Church. Christians did not then have fixed and defined 
rules of government for the Church in all its operations ; and no 
man under the sun can prove such to have been the case. The 
fundamental principles of religion were the siSne then as now, but 
the specific rules by which the operations of the Church and of the 
Gospel were to be carried on, are nowhere definitely laid down by 
Christ. Take the commission, if you please, it says: "Go ye into 
all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature." But is it 
specified how they were to go; what should be their meaus of trans- 
portation from place to place ; or whether they should preach to one 
church or to a dozen? He does not give special directions for build- 
ing churches, organizing prayer meetings, Sabbath-schools, and many 
other things of this kind. No, sir; these things grow out of the 
religion of Jesus Christ, and are left to be settled by those who em- 
brace this religion. 

Objections are also made to my Church, because, in one of its arti- 
cles of religion, it is said rites and ceremonies may be changed to suit 
the time and place ; and his remarks with reference to that article 
satisfied me that the gentleman did not understand it. If he will 
turn to the fifteenth article, he will find it stated there that the sacra- 
ments are ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel. These are Bap- 
tism and the Lord's Supper. The rites and ceremonies which may be 
changed at the option of the people, at any time, are not the sacra- 
ments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, but modes of worship, and 
all the prudential arrangements made for a congregation assembling 
for the worship of God- 

But the brother finds our bishops very troublesome, and very 
much in the way of settling things upon a feasible basis. They do 
not claim divine authority for their office and work of general super- 
intendence. I told him, this morning, that so far as scriptural au- 
thority was concerned, I was as high in order as any of them. I 
have been ordained both deacon and elder. They are elected to 
supervise the whole work, to overlook all the different districts and 
preachers, in order that they may keep the work progressing. And 
yet he twits us about being circuit-riders, and would fain cast con- 
tumely upon our bishops, the noblest and grandest set of men upon 
the face of the earth. They will compare favorably with any equal 
number of statesmen, legislators, philosophers, or any other class of 
men you can find upon the face of this earth. Take, for instance, 
Bishop George F. Pierce, the most popular pulpit orator of the age, 
a man able to guide the ship of state, who can hold thousands en- 
tranced with his eloquence, and think of his traveling all over the 
Southern States, from the Ohio River to the Gulf of Mexico, and 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, and depending upon the 
voluntary contributions of the Church for his support. He is 
capable of filling the highest position in the country. Does not 
such a man more resemble the apostles, in the abundance of his labors 



MR. FITCH'S SECOND ADDRESS. 361 

and privations, than a preacher settled in a town or city for years, 
and preaching to one congregation with a salary of thousands of 
dollars ? 

Mr. Campbell, when he started out in his so-called reformation, 
was opposed to all salaried ministers. Here is something to which 
my brother takes exception. He blames me for calling Christ a 
reformer, but I can quote from Mr. Campbell where he says that 
Jesus Christ was a reformer, and if he questions my assertion, I will 
produce the passage from the report of the debate between Mr. Camp- 
bell and Mr. Rice. Yet he intimates that I commit a great offense 
■when I call Jesus Christ a reformer. He came to his own, and his 
own received him not, although he came as a mediator between God 
and man, and died to bring about a reconciliation between God and 
the sinner. He did reform his Church, and he was a great re- 
former. Mr. B. took exceptions to my remarks concerning Mr. 
C. as a modern reformer. I have said nothing of Mr. C. as a re- 
former that I do not believe to be strictly true. I repeat, that the 
so-called reformation of the present time has not a single element 
of a real reformation. The reformation of Mr. Campbell does not 
resemble that initiated by Luther or John Wesley, nor will it ever 
be recognized by any historian as a real reformation. Are my 
brother and his membership better than other Christian people of 
this land? There is nothing in his Church divinely authorized that 
is not also in every church, and in every sense in which the Method- 
ist Church was founded by John Wesley, the so-called Christian 
Church was founded by Alexander Campbell. 

Our Church is divine in every sense in which his is divine, and his 
Church is human in every sense in which ours is human. He has, 
then, no right to appoint a man to any work not directly authorized 
by the word of God, according to his theory. I call upon him to 
show his authority for superintendents of Sabbath schools, mission- 
ary meetings, such as they held in Lexington last week, and all the 
other prudential arrangements, which they have in common with 
other people. He has no scriptural authority whatever for them. 
If our polity is to be objected to because it is prudential, and not 
of divine appointment, let him cut off from his own Church every 
prudential arrangement that he can not find a "Thus saith the 
Lord" for, and then I will hear him upon this subject. 

The brother says he can not unite with me, because of his con- 
science; and he spoke of the Presbyterians as conscientious and 
consistent, because they reject immersion as baptism. Well, then, 
according to his own admission, they can never unite with him upon 
his basis, if they are conscientious in rejecting immersion as bap- 
tism. Then there is one large denomination, numbering nine hun- 
dred thousand, in this land, that can never unite with him upon what 
he believes the Bible to teach. If we are not conscientious on this sub- 
ject, because we practice immersion — and I have explained this thing 
31 



362 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

half a dozen times — I hope he will allow us a little conscientious- 
ness on the subject of infant baptism. We do not impose any thing 
upon him; we do not say even that his children shall be baptized; 
but we allow him to leave them out if he chooses. He can receive 
baptism in any way he chooses. If he believes it is for the remis- 
sion of sins, let him receive it, believing that his sins will certainly 
be remitted. Therefore, when we invite him into our Church, we 
impose nothing upon him, and we restrict him in nothing. 

(Time Expired.) 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY. 363 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I have a single point to notice in the speech of my friend, de- 
livered this morning, and then I will proceed to review the speech 
he has just made. He said much, this morning, about creeds, 
and he is still upon that subject; I want, therefore, to direct your 
attention, for a moment, to his remarks on that question. He says 
their creed is based on the word of God. Now, this is just the 
difference between the creed of my friend and ours. Mine is the 
word of God, and not based on it at all. It is simply the word of 
God as it fell from the lips of the inspired apostles. There is a vast 
difference between a creed based on the word of God and the word 
of God itself. That is just the difference between our respective 
creeds. He says he takes the word of God for his creed, and he 
believes it; but he adds to the word of God this little book (the 
"Discipline") I hold in my hand, for which he can not, and does 
not pretend to show any authority whatever in the word of God. 
Indeed, the bishops themselves, as we saw, on yesterday, in the in- 
troduction to the "Discipline," do not attempt to show divine au- 
thority for it. They say: " We esteem it our duty and privilege 
most earnestly to recommend to you, as members of our Church, our 
form of discipline, which has been founded on the experience of a 
long series of years." Not on the word of God, but simply on the 
experience of a long series of years. But he tells us that we must 
have a creed, in order to keep the doctrines of the Church pure. I 
wonder how the primitive Church kept their doctrine pure ! Did 
the apostles, and those who succeeded them, have a creed? My 
friend, it would seem, is wiser than the apostles of Jesus Christ. The 
primitive Church could not keep their doctrine pure; but the apos- 
tles did not think of this wise expedient. My friend, wiser than they, 
solves the difficulty, and makes a creed, to keep the doctrine pure. 
How does he succeed? Who is to judge? Why, just we — us — we 
of the Methodist Church. He thinks that, if the creed is kept, the 
doctrine must be pure. But his creed has done just the opposite of 
what he claims it has done. Besides all this, he asks how are we to 
detect a heretic, without a creed. How does he detect one with his 
creed ? Does he do it by' his creed, and not by the word of God ? 
What authority has he to detect a heretic without the word of God ? 
We do it by the word of God. That is the way we detect a heretic. 
If he detects a heretic by any other means, he does it without being 



364 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

authorized by divine authority, and his is simply an act of unwar- 
ranted despotism — of unmitigated tyranny. 

Now, in regard to discipline in the Church, I was a little sur- 
prised that my friend made the appeal he did to this community. 
He tells us that, unless we have a creed, we can not discipline the 
Church. I wonder if he knows, or does not know, that the church 
to which I belong is better disciplined than any in the place; and 
yet we have no human creed? We discipline by the divine creed — 
by the creed which the apostles gave, and which they thought per- 
fect, "for instruction in righteousness, for correction," and all things 
else necessary to perfect the Church of the Living God. He asked by 
what authority we turn men out of the Church for dancing, or for sell- 
ing intoxicating liquors. Where does he get his authority to do it? 
Does he tell us, from his " Discipline," and not from the Bible ? Then 
his act is not by divine authority at all, and I deny his right. If he does 
it by any authority not in the word of God, the act is another feature 
of that despotism about which we have been talking. Does he tell 
you that he does it by the word of God ? Well, so do we : then what 
better off is he? We take the word of God, and discipline men for 
the highest crimes. If he does it by any other authority, it is simply 
an act of despotism ; if he does it by authority of the word of God, 
where is the necessity of his creed? He says we have a creed, but 
can not tell what is in it. That is a strange idea — can not tell what 
is in the Bible? Well, if we can not tell, how could those who made 
his creed tell? If they could tell, can not we? Our people are not 
as dull as he or they imagine. 

These are the points the gentleman made on this subject this morn- 
ing. But he says again that creeds do not make divisions; but di- 
visions exist, and creeds are the result of these. In one sense, that 
may be true. There were divisions in the Church of Corinth before 
creeds were made ; but those divisions did not result in dividing the 
Church of God into distinct bodies, warring against each other. The 
Apostle Paul reproached them on account of these divisions, but never 
suggested human creeds as a remedy ; nor did these divisions ever re- 
sult in the shedding of blood in the Church of the Living God. Never! 
No people upon this earth who had not a human creed, ever shed 
brother's blood in the name of the Church. After the appearance of 
the Nicene Creed, they persecuted unto death. The Church of Eng- 
land persecuted the Puritans ; and these very people, when they came 
to this country, persecuted unto death the Quakers and the Baptists. 
But where did any party exist, without a human creed, that ever shed 
the blood of their fellow-men in the name of religion ? I defy him to 
show a single instance. Had they no creed, they might get back to 
the word of God, even though they have gone into error; but they 
are bound to a creed they made a hundred years ago, and, right or 
wrong, they can never change it. It must remain just as they have 
it; not one word to be added to or taken from it. Words have 



mr. brooks's second reply. 365 

changed altogether as to their import, as they do in every living 
language; still they must be retained, because the "Articles of Relig- 
ion " can not be changed. Wesley did much to reform the religious 
world ; did much that was essential to the perfection of that work, 
but did not perfect it; indeed, he may have done all he could in that 
age; but shall we refuse to be guided by the increased knowledge 
that now floods the world? This is one reason why we object to 
creeds: they stereotype the errors and imperfections of ages gone. 

He talks about the great number of his members, and tells us 
they have only been at work a hundred years, and have got two 
million members, and, therefore they are right. That is the ar- 
gument. Well, the Spiritualists have been working only twenty- 
five years, and have five millions; therefore, they are right. This 
is the logic with which the gentleman would strive to convince us 
that, there is something of heaven in the creed that he preaches. 
The same logic will dethrone the Redeemer himself, and make the 
Spiritualists right. 

He says we "have no authority for missionary work, for 
Sunday-schools, prayer meetings," etc. If this be true, there is no 
authority for praying in social life or the public assembly. Does 
he mean to say it? Why, I thought he would have us pray all 
the time; but now he says there is no authority in the word of 
God for prayer meetings. The Apostle commands that we "train 
our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." The 
Savior commanded us "to teach all nations," and yet, we have no 
authority for these things. With this authority, shall we not train 
them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and teach them 
the ways of righteousness? Is there, then, no authority for teaching 
children? Shall we not bring up our children in compliance with 
the demands of the law? When Christ says, "Go ye into all the 
world and preach the Gospel to every creature," shall we not, under 
this commission, do missionary work ? What better authority could 
we have ? 

But we pass on to the review 7 of the gentleman's last speech. He 
says : " The Northern Methodists agreed to be the Methodist Church 
in the North, and we the Methodist Church in the South." The 
Northern Methodists did no such thing. They simply remained the 
Methodist Episcopal Church both here and there, and the Church 
of my friend became the Methodist Episcopal Church South. 
That is the truth in the matter. It was the division in the Church 
of Mr. Fitch that made this nation tremble to its center, tore it 
into fragments, and baptized the whole country in the blood of its 
martyred sons. And yet it was only a family quarrel ! It has had 
more to do with the troubles which have come upon us than any 
other cause. And yet it was a quiet and peaceable separation! A 
Southern bishop, because he had married a woman who held slaves, 
could not be permitted to remain in the office of bishop, and the 



366 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

contention, growing out of this, increased that animosity which 
culminated in division ; and yet, it was nothing but a quiet and 
peaceable separation ! The gentleman knows better, or else he is in 
ignorance, and does not know any thing about the history of his 
Church. 

He objects to my statement with regard to his polity, and said his 
Church was modeled after this republic. This is a beautiful con- 
fession for a preacher to make : " Our Church is modeled after 
this republic ! " God established a kingdom in the world, and, 
according to the Bible, gave it a divine government ; and yet, " our 
Church is modeled after a republican government! " Clearly, then, 
it is not the Church of God, for that is a kingdom, and not a republic, 
nor is it modeled after a republic. 

The gentleman says I have misapprehended the character of his 
annual conference. Perhaps I may have made some jocular state- 
ment to an old preacher some years ago, but whether I did or not, I 
would have him know that I perfectly understand his polity. He 
says they have lay representatives in the General Conference of their 
Church. True, but let us see what power they have : " Them bl- 
isters and laymen shall deliberate in one body; but upon a call of 
one-fifth of the members of the Conference, the lay and clerical mem- 
bers shall vote separately, and no measure shall be passed without 
the concurrence of a majority of both classes of representatives." 
(See Discipline.) 

Ah ! these preachers will guard their rights as long as God lets 
them live, and Americans will be slaves. If it be a test question, 
they divide them off, and the preachers get on one side, and put the 
laymen on the other, and then, if a majority of the preachers vote for 
it, it is all right. The lay members may then vote ; yes, may vote ! 
What mockery. If a majority of the preachers do not vote for a 
measure, it will be lost. Wondrous liberty, this ! The height of 
human tyranny is in this system. I repeat it, the preachers make 
and execute their laws, and the preachers sit in judgment to decide 
their import. There is no liberty about it. They have planted a 
system of human despotism never before surpassed in the annals of 
ecclesiastical history. Never, no, never ! What liberty have these 
lay members? The right to sit and deliberate, and if they are 
about to outvote the preachers, they are politely told to get out in 
one corner, until the preachers decide the case. In short, if we [the 
preachers] think you are right, we will vote with you, and then you 
may come and pass your measure. 

In reference to their Church trials, the gentleman tells us the mem- 
ber has all liberty, and can be tried fairly. Let us see': "When a 
member of the Church is under report of being guilty of some crime 
expressly forbidden in the Word of God, the preacher having charge 
shall appoint a committee of three discreet members, who shall in- 
vestigate the report, and if they judge a trial to be necessary, they 



MR. BROOKS'S SECOND REPLY. 367 

shall appoint one of their number to prepare a bill of charges and 
specifications, and also to prosecute the case." (Discipline in loco.) 
The preacher appoints the committee to investigate the charges; the 
man himself has no choice in the selection, and the committee name 
the prosecuting attorney. Thus, if the preacher wills, he may have 
only the personal enemies of the man to work up and prosecute his 



" Upon the presentation of such bill of charges, the preacher 
shall appoint a committee of not less than five, nor more than thir- 
teen, who shall have full power to try the case ; and if the accused 
be found guilty by a majority of the committee, and the crime be 
such as is expressly forbidden in the word of God, let the preacher 
declare him suspended or expelled. Nevertheless, the preacher may, 
at his discretion, bring the case before the whole church for trial." 
Well, what rights has the man himself? "A copy of the charge 
and specifications shall be delivered to the accused a sufficient length 
of time to enable him to make all necessary preparations for his 
defense ; and in the case of trial before a committee, he shall be al- 
lowed, upon good reasons alleged, to challenge two in a committee 
of five, and in like ratio for any other number." 

If the preacher be your enemy, do you not see how a majority of 
the committee may be your most bitter enemies ? Of five selected 
by your enemy, a majority may be your vilest enemies. You shall 
have the gracious privilege of objecting to two. The preacher holds 
the reins in his hands ; for this committee, appointed by him, and 
to the majority of which committee you can not except, tries you. 
If the preacher himself is to be tried, they allow him to except to a 
majority of the committee ; but the poor brother, who, in the lan- 
guage of my friend's great bishop, Bascom, "is enslaved," can ex- 
cept to but two out of five. Why this distinction in favor of the 
preachers, if it be not a despotism? "But you can appeal to the 
quarterly conference." Well, who compose the quarterly conference? 
The preacher first, and then the appointees of the preacher, who can 
only hold their places at his will and pleasure. First, the stewards 
whom the preacher nominates. If he did not nominate them, of course 
they could not be elected ; hence the preacher can control the election 
of these. Secondly, the class-leaders, whom he appoints and removes 
at pleasure. Thirdly, the preacher sits upon the bench, interprets 
the law, and instructs this jury of his own packing. Beautiful sys- 
tem this; and yet my friend says, "It does not hurt any body; no 
one is wronged." 

But let us hear Mr. Inskip on this subject. In his History of 
Methodism, he says : " It may be esteemed treasonable and hazard- 
ous to intimate any thing of the kind, but it is true we have im- 
bibed the idea that the presiding eldership is an instrument by 
which a system of favoritism is fostered, and crafty and improper in- 
fluences are brought to bear upon the stationing authorities of the 



368 BROOKS AND FITCII DEBATE. 

Church" — p. 143. All this Mr. Inskip says, and yet, in borrowed 
language, my friend declares that "nobody is hurt." 

But again, says Mr. Inskip, page 146: "The presiding elders are 
chosen by the bishops. And, however unacceptable the persons 
thus chosen may be, to those whose situation in life and ministerial 
labors they appoint and direct, they have no authority to displace 
them. Their official action may be altogether erroneous and unsatis- 
factory ; they maybe chargeable with the most flagrant and oppressive 
favoritism, and yet the parties oppressed have no power to remove 
them from office." . . . " The irresponsibility of .the presiding 
eldership is fraught with the most dangerous tendencies, and is con- 
trary to our economy and usage in all other respects." — P. 150. 

Thus speaks this eminent man of his Church polity ; but my 
friend, Mr. Fitch, can not see it that way. No, he does not want 
to see it before this audience; such sentiments are intended only 
for the private consideration of Methodist preachers. All this, and 
yet he says there is liberty in " my Church," for every thing depends 
upon the expressed will of the people. I deny that any thing 
depends upon the will of the people. In the Church with which I 
stand identified, a member can select the committee that tries him. 
He may there take his cause to the elders of the church, and except to 
any member who is to sit in judgment on his case. That is just the dif- 
ference between us. Their preachers pack the jury that is to try. 
In my Church, the party selects his own committee. 

He says his quarterly conferences are represented by our quarterly 
courts. Suppose that in these quarterly courts the officers were the 
very body of men who had made the laws to govern the people, and 
w r ere sitting now on the bench in all these courts to interpret them, 
and a case should go up for trial, with the same men who made the laws 
sitting on the bench and expounding them to jurors appointed by 
themselves, and who can be removed at their will and pleasure, what 
justice would you expect ? But, to cap the climax, suppose the same 
men should now descend from the bench, and take the place of the 
sheriff to execute the verdict they had compelled at the hands of the 
jury, how just and righteous a court we should have! The judge is 
the man who made the law, and he it is who judges and interprets 
the law, and who executes the law. What precious liberty would be 
ours under such a system ! No, sir ; a system of government, founded 
and organized as the Church of my friend is, would be swept from 
this country as with the besom of destruction. It would not be tole- 
rated for one hour ; no, not for a single moment. What astonishes me 
is, that American freemen will allow themselves to be tyrannized over 
by preachers who make, judge, and execute their laws. The gentle- 
man has gained nothing by returning to this position. Quarterly 
courts, indeed ! I beg to be delivered from the power of such quar- 
terly courts. 

Stephen, he tells us, was a deacon, and preached. Well, so he 



MR. BROOKSS SECOND REPLY. 6b\) 

did; but he waited upon tables in the church at Jerusalem, until 
he became fitted for other work ; bat, because he preached after- 
ward, it does not follow that he preached as a deacon. While he 
was a deacon, he served at tables; but, after he developed his powers 
and capacity, he went out, like every good and wise man of that day, 
to preach the Gospel throughout the country. 

He says I blamed him for calling Christ a reformer. He is mis- 
taken again. I said he had classed Christ's mission with the refor- 
mation of Wesley, and other reformers. I do not object to his call- 
ing him a reformer, if he will do it without putting his work upon a 
level with the reformations of Luther and Wesley; but I object to 
his calling Christ either a Campbellite or a fool ; and I tell you I 
want to enter my solemn protest against it to-day. Will you tell 
me that I shall not, in unmeasured terms, denounce it, when a 
preacher of the Gospel smilingly approves the blasphemous utter- 
ance of one of his brethren, who flippantly speaks of Christ as a 
fool ; and when his sage Christian and dignified elders (?) sit around 
and laugh at the blasphemous jest, that should have brought the 
blush of shame to the cheek of the man that uttered it? That is 
what I reproved. No, the name of Jesus is too sacred to be used 
in the form of a jest at all. 

Alexander Campbell, he says, is the founder of the Christian 
Church. ' Alexander Campbell never gave to the light one single 
religious tenet, which is not in the word of God, and we have never 
granted that he did. But my friend's great men tell us that John 
Wesley was the founder of his Church, and that he, with sundry 
others, framed the Discipline which has been handed down to us. 

We wish to spend at least a moment of time on the ninth article 
of his creed: ''We are accounted righteous before God, only for 
the merit of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by faith, and not for 
our own works or deservings ; wherefore, that we are justified by 
faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." 

Most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort! Now, we 
are really accounted righteous by faith in Christ. Faith is that by 
which the soul appropriates the merits of Christ to itself. But if it 
is by the merits of Christ only, it is not by faith only, and I object 
to this contradictory statement. More than that, I object to that 
expression, "justified by faith only ;" for James says, in his Epistle, 
that "faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone" — chap, ii; 
and that "by works a man is justified, and and not by faith only." 
The gentleman must confess himself that his creed is at variance 
with the word of God ; and still he calls upon us to come and unite 
with him. I most solemnly and earnestly object. He must erase 
the word " only," and say, "We are justified by faith," and we will 
believe him; but we do not believe the other. It is simply false, 
and the word of God declares it to be so. We are justified by be- 
lief in Christ, by belief in the Gospel, and we are justified and saved 



370 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

by works. "We accept and obey all the conditions that God Al- 
mighty has imposed. "We are not willing that any one means of 
justification shall be taken away. 

He says, in his seventeenth article of religion: "Baptism is not 
only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christians 
are distinguished from others that are not baptized ; but it is also a 
sign of regeneration, or the new birth. The baptism of young chil- 
dren is to be retained in the Church." 

It is not so; baptism is not a mark or sign of any thing. 

{Time Expired.) 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 371 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The brother says that I have called him back to this subject, and 
he has had his second say, and if his people are not ashamed of that 
say before I get through with my remarks, they have less conscience — 
less judgment and appreciation than I have given them credit for. 

I propose to read two passages that he read from this Discipline, 
and show you that he knows nothing at all about what he has been 
talking. We will interpret every thing else he said by the construc- 
tion that he has put upon this. He called your attention to the Gene- 
ral Conference to show you that our Church government is one of 
tyranny and despotism, and here is the passage which he read : "The 
ministers and laymen shall deliberate in one body ; but, upon a call 
of one-fifth of the members of the conference, the lay and clerical 
members shall vote separately, and no measure shall be passed with- 
out the concurrence of a majority of both classes of representatives." 

Mark the language here: the General Conference shall be com- 
posed of one clerical member for every twenty-eight members of each 
annual conference, and an equal number of lay members. There are 
five lay members, then, to every five preachers. The passage which 
the gentleman read says : " That upon a call of one-fifth of the mem- 
bers of conference," etc. — it does not say from whom the call shall 
come, whether from the clergy or from the laity — the members of the 
conference shall vote separately. Is there any tyranny in that? Is 
there any despotism in that? It does not say on which side of the 
house the one-fifth must be which makes the call. If there are fifty 
preachers and fifty laymen, then one-fifth would be twenty. Of 
these, ten might be preachers, and ten laymen; or there might be 
one preacher and nineteen laymen, and then they shall vote sepa- 
rately. And no measure shall be passed ivithout the concurrence of a 
majority of the preachers; that is what he said, or, at least, that was 
the impression he endeavored to make ; but a concurrence is required 
of both classes of representatives. If fifty laymen, with equal rights 
and privileges, can not defend themselves against fifty preachers, 
when every layman has one vote to put against every single preach- 
er's vote, they ought to be oppressed a little. Nothing can be passed 
as a law in the General Conference without a majority of the lay 
element present vote for it. And that is oppression, is it? 

Do you remember how the gentleman went off into a terrible ex- 
hortation and protest against such tyranny and despotism ? If. he can 



372 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

not understand a plain simple passage or article of law, we ask, in the 
name of common sense, how he is to understand any thing in the 
world? What does he mean? Does he think that I will not follow 
him, and expose his misrepresentations? Does he expect to palm 
off such misrepresentations upon this people ? I will, again, call your 
attention to the trial of members : " Upon the presentation of such 
bill of charges, the preacher shall appoint a committee of not less 
than five, nor more than thirteen, who shall have full power to try 
the case; and if the accused be found guilty, by a majority of the 
committee, and the crime be such as is expressly forbidden in the 
word of God, let the preacher declare him suspended or expelled. 
Nevertheless, the preacher may, at his discretion, bring the case 
before the whole church for trial." From the brother's speech, he 
seems to think that a Methodist preacher can cite a member to trial 
at his pleasure, and expel him without difficulty. He seems to 
suppose, that it would be the delight and interest of the preacher to 
expel any and every one who may have become the object of his 
dislike. The very fact that he tries to make the impression upon 
this audience, that the preacher would select, as a committee, for 
the trial of an offender, the personal enemies of the man, in order to 
secure his expulsion from the Church, is virtually charging us with 
dishonesty. That was implied in his language, whether he intended 
it or not. I suppose that because I am out of the kingdom, and a 
Methodist preacher, that I will take advantage of the power invested 
in me, and select a committee that I know will expel the man ; es- 
pecially when I know I shall be held amenable to the annual con- 
ference for maladministration, if I do not discharge my duty in the 
premises. It seems to me that fear of that "great iron ivheel" that, 
like the car of Juggernaut, might roll over and crush me, would 
deter me from any thing of that kind. I suppose, because the gen- 
tleman is a Christian, and I am out of the kingdom, that many things 
are allowable in him which would be ungentlemanly in me. 

Is there any oppression in this whole thing ? When any member 
of the church brings against another member a written bill of charges, 
with specifications, the preacher may select a committee of five or seven 
to try the man, or the man may be tried before the whole church, and 
all the preacher can do is to sit, as the moderator does at this debate, 
and regulate the proceedings, and see that the man has justice done 
him. If that is oppression or despotism, I wonder where liberty is 
to be found in this country ! 

Now the extracts which the brother made from Inskip, may have 
been perverted in the same way. This is what he does with the 
Methodist Discipline, when he knows that I will follow him, and ex- 
pose all his misrepresentations. The quarterly conference seems to 
him like one wheel inside of the "great iron wheel," and to be gotten 
up for the express benefit of the preachers. How are its members 
appointed ? The Discipline gives the preacher the right of nomina- 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 373 

tion, but he seldom exercises that right. The persons composing the 
quarterly conference, are the class-leaders, the superintendents of the 
jSu7i day-schools, and the stewards of the church. But, then, the preacher 
ha* them ail under his thumb, and he can manage them, and do with 
them just as he pleases, and the presiding elder has no authority in 
the case ! Does the gentleman know how these stewards are ap- 
pointed, and when they are appointed? They are elected every year, 
and the preachers are changed quite too frequently to perfect a system 
of tyranny. His whole speech was a libel upon Methodism, as false 
as the spirit that instigates it. It was a vile slander upon Methodism, 
which is the glory and pride of my heart. 

The brother told you, in his last speech, that I blasphemed, and 
elders and brethren sat around and laughed at my blasphemy. I did 
not call Christ a fool. His friend and brother represented him as 
doing a very foolish thing. I am sorry he has been so hard pressed, 
and has had such a hard struggle all the w r ay through this debate, 
that his brethren have been in such anguish and fear, that they have 
not laughed any for him. It is a pity that he has not received any 
encouragement. I think he would feel better if they would only 
laugh a little for him, and cease to twit my brethren on account of 
their laughing and tittering. I have tried to conduct this debate in 
the spirit of Christianity ; I feel confident that you will bear me wit- 
ness that I have tried to deport myself as a Christian gentleman. If 
I have used any harsh and unbecoming language, it has been in reply 
to my friend's offensive and opprobrious remarks. 

I am a blasphemer, forsooth, because I represented Christ as a 
reformer. But Mr. Campbell did the same thing, and he has told 
us that his Church was the Church instituted on the day of Pente- 
cost, ever since Monday. I would like to know which of his churches 
was instituted at that time. The church in Lexington differs from 
the church in Winchester in its polity. The church in Lexington 
affiliates with the American Bible Society, and his does not. Which 
one is .the one that was instituted on the day of Pentecost? He con- 
demns his brethren here for engaging in the whisky traffic, and the 
church in Paris, until very recently, tolerated that traffic. Which was 
established on the day of Pentecost? The whole thing is an absurdity. 

And then the brother talks about creeds. I will give him a pas- 
sage of Scripture, and I want to see what he will make of it. It is 
Acts xvi: 4, and reads as follows: " And as they went through the 
cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained 
of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem." 

Will he find those decrees that were ordained of the apostles and 
elders at Jerusalem, in the New Testament, and identify them, and 
show them to me? I would like to see them. I assert, once more, 
that our polity is divine in every sense in which his is divine, because 
we have every thing which Christ gave for the government of the 
Church, and w 7 e claim that our economy is based upon the Bible. 



374 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

The prudential arrangements founded upon the necessities of the 
case, are as divinely authorized in my Church as they are in his. I 
did not say men were not commanded to pray. I want the authority 
for holding prayer-meetings, and for teaching Sabbath-schools, just 
as he is teaching them. We want a "Thus saith the Lord" for 
the establishment of Sabbath-schools just as he has them. That is 
what I am talking about ; not the principle, but the way of doing 
the thing. God has not laid down any rules by which men shall 
preach the Gospel. The command was : " Go ye into all the world 
and preach the Gospel to every creature." The Gospel may be 
preached in many different ways. My way of preaching it is very 
different from brother Brooks's way of preaching it. I suppose he 
has a divine way of preaching it. He preaches it according to divine 
appointment, and he declares me, and every thing connected with my 
Church, to be heretical, and says we are out of the kingdom. 

I wish to read the brother some of the inconsistencies of his sys- 
tem. I want to show him where Mr. Campbell taught that any one, 
whether belonging to the kingdom or not, had a right to baptize. I 
will read on page 571 of the report of the debate between Camp- 
bell and Rice, where he says that any one to whom the man applies 
has a right to administer baptism : "There is no law in the Chris- 
tian Scriptures authorizing any one class of citizens in the Christian 
kingdom to immerse, to the exclusion of any other class of citizens. 
Apostles, evangelists, deacons, and unofficial persons are all repre- 
sented as immersing when occasion called for it." I suppose that 
there is divine authority for that. I will read another quotation, for 
the purpose of showing the exclusiveness of his system even in the 
estimation of some of its most ardent friends. (Campbell and Bice's 
Debate, p. 771.) Barton W. Stone, a minister of his Church, speak- 
ing of the Reformers, says: "Should they make their own peculiar 
views of immersion a term of fellowship, it will be impossible for 
them to repel successfully the imputation of being sectarians, and 
of having an authoritative creed (though not written) of one article, 
at least, which is formed of their opinions of truth ; and this short 
creed would exclude more Christians from union than any creed 
with which I am acquainted." To this, Mr. Campbell replied: "I 
agree with the Christian Messenger (Stone's paper) that there will be 
more Christians (calling all Christendom Christians) excluded by 
insisting on this command — 'Be immersed,' etc. — than by any creed 
in Christendom." — Mill. Har., v. i, pp. 370-2. And yet this is the 
very command upon which he wants us to unite with him in church 
organization. 

Mr. B. wishes to know how we detect heresies by our creed ; 
he also asks if he can not ascertain what is in the Bible as well as 
we. Having ascertained what we believe to be the teaching of the 
Bible both as to doctrine and practice, we have committed it to writ- 
ing for the sake of convenience, and this is our creed. Our decision 



MR. FITCH'S THIRD ADDRESS. 375 

as to what is heresy in belief, and immorality in practice, is herein 
set forth ; and, when charges are preferred against a member, we 
have simply to refer to the "Discipline" to fix the character of his 
offense. But the gentleman's Church has no such convenient compend 
of Bible doctrine and law. Every time my friend decides as to the 
meaning of the sacred Scriptures, or the character of an offense, he 
virtually establishes a creed. A man's creed is nothing more than 
his belief, and is the same whether written or unwritten. Our creed 
is written, and may be read and known of all men ; but my friend's 
creed is concealed in the chambers of his soul, except as he publishes 
a portion of it now and then to the world. He advocates a union 
upon the basis of the Bible alone. Do you suppose that if I should 
agree in all sincerity to be immersed by him, and join his Church, 
and should, after having done so, enter the Christian Church in the 
town of Winchester, and select for the foundation of a discourse the 
ninth article of our " Discipline," to which he has so seriously ob- 
jected, and preach from it what I now believe to be the truth of 
God, that he would tolerate me? The thing has been tried, and 
would not work. If I should go into that church and begin to 
preach, I should very soon develop the fact that there is a creed in it, 
and he would come and tell me that I was preaching heresy, and not 
according to the truth. You know this fact, and I know it well, for, 
as I just remarked, it has been tried, and would not work. It is all 
"stuff," if you will allow the expression, to talk about not having a 
creed, and of uniting upon the basis of the Bible, w T hen he alone 
must interpret it. I am willing to unite with any man upon the 
Bible, but not upon the brother's understanding of" it. He under- 
stands it to teach that immersion, and nothing but immersion, is 
baptism. I understand no such thing. For me to agree with him 
upon his idea of baptism, would no more be a union upon the basis 
of the Bible than for him to agree with me upon my idea. The only 
way to unite upon the basis of the Bible is to take the word of God 
and let every man interpret it for himself. I am not responsible to 
any man, so far as my religious obligations are concerned; I am re- 
sponsible to God alone. I must read his revelation for myself, under- 
stand it for myself, and believe it for myself; and, whenever I plant 
myself upon my understanding of it, so far as I am individually 
concerned, I am upon the Bible, and sustaining my proper relations 
to Almighty God. 

The article to which my friend objects, which teaches justification 
by faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, agrees with the Bible. I have 
not time, at this late hour in the debate, to show you our under- 
Standing of its exact purport. I have never heard one of the gen- 
tleman's denomination explain it as we Methodists understand it. 
We have a right to put our own construction upon our own language. 
When I say a thing, I know what meaning I intend to give to my 
words as well as any one else, and, probably, a little better, and, ac- 



376 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

cording to the usages of the literary world, I am allowed to put my 
own construction upon it. We believe that while faith is not alone 
in the work of salvation, it is the only thing that appropriates the 
blood of Christ, by which we are cleansed. 

My friend's remarks with reference to the division of the Method- 
ist Episcopal Church do not present the facts in the case. I know 
whereof I affirm. I know that there was a mutual agreement with 
reference to this separation. The line by which the two churches 
were to be separated, and the territory to be occupied by each, were 
agreed upon, and if my statement is questioned, I can produce the 
testimony. The two divisions agreed to confine their labors, the 
one to the North, and the other to the South, and nothing has since 
occurred to change the original contract. We obtained every thing 
which they withheld from us when the separation took place. The 
brother says that he knows all about it. But he is honestly mis- 
taken. He also told you that he knew all about the General Con- 
ference, but I showed you that he knew nothing of the matter. He 
is like a drowning man, who catches at straws to save himself. 
This is what he has been doing, but down he goes, taking his theory 
with him, in spite of all his grasping, panting, and blowing. 

I stated, in my former speech, that, in some regards, our quarterly 
conference resembled the circuit court of our commonwealth. He 
represented me as having compared it to the quarterly court, w r hich 
I did not do. 

I will now repeat the arguments which I have offered to show that 
the Methodist Church, in her doctrine and polity, presents a feasible 
basis for the union of Protestant Christians. It does not impose 
upon any one any thing not essential to salvation. It allows every 
one the right of private judgment. It allows every one to be baptized 
in any w T ay he may choose. It does not, in any manner, interfere 
with the dictates of the conscience,, concerning this and all other 
rites. It does not agitate those questions, which, whether they be 
true or false, are not essential to the salvation of the individual. 
These affect the religion of no man in any way. Our Articles em- 
body only those doctrines which are considered, by all denominations 
of Christians, as essential to salvation. There is not a Church in the 
land that can not unite with us more readily than it can unite with 
my brother's Church, because we impose no new burden upon them, 
and w r e restrict them in none of their privileges and present beliefs. 
I believe that immersion is baptism, because water is applied to the 
subject, and the prescribed formula is pronounced over him. 

But my brother could not, or would not, receive my children into 
the Church. Presbyterians could not enter his Church, because, he 
tells us, that they are honest and conscientious. The largest Churches 
in the laud can not enter into a union with him. The Methodist 
Church, with her more than two millions and a quarter of commu- 
nicants, can not come into communion with him. The Presby- 



MR. FITCH'S THIED ADDRESS. 377 

terian Church, with her nine hundred thousand members, can not 
unite with him ; neither can the Lutheran Church, nor the Episcopal 
Church. He stands alone, as he said the other day, with our good 
brother French and his brethren, in the kingdom. 

Why is my friend so anxious to receive the Baptists into his 
Church ? If they are in the kingdom, why not let them alone, or go 
to them? If I believed that any particular denomination was in the 
kingdom, and I out of it, I would go straight to them. But we 
claim to be in the kingdom, and built upon the foundation of Jesus 
Christ and the apostles — Christ, who is all in all, being the chief 
corner-stone. Our creed is but the expression of what we believe 
the Bible teaches. It is presented in a condensed and convenient 
form. Our polity is partly divine and partly human. It is divine 
in every sense in which the polity of my brother's, or any other 
Church ; is divine, because we have the orders of the Apostolic 
Church — elders and deacons — and we have all the doctrines and 
teachings of the New Testament applicable to men in all the posi- 
tions and relations of life. We have our prudential arrangements, 
as does every other Church in the land. For those, we do not claim 
divine authority. They are no more of divine origin than the office 
of superintendent of a Sunday-school. Our bishops are elected 
simply to oversee the Church, and look after its general interests. 

I did not say that our success was an evidence of the fact that we 
were right. I said that our success was an evidence of the wisdom 
of our polity. It has proven itself to be adapted to the wants and 
conditions of the people of this land. We have always been con- 
sidered the pioneer Church. We have proceeded, step by step, with 
the age, as it has progressed. When the hardy sons and daughters 
of toil have gone to the far West, the Methodist preacher has some- 
times made his appearance, before they have pitched their tents, with 
his saddle-bags and his Bible, to preach to them the unsearchable 
riches of Christ. 

Gentlemen Moderators, I tender you my sincere thanks for the 
impartial manner in which you have presided during this discussion. 
May the richest blessings of God be yQur portion. I am, also, sin- 
cerely thankful to this congregation for the kind and earnest atten- 
tion which they have paid to my efforts during the progress of this 
debate. 

32 



378 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY, ON THE SIXTH 
PROPOSITION. 

Gentlemen Moderators, Ladies and Gentlemen: 

I know the position in which ray brother finds himself this even- 
ing is not very pleasant. I am fully aware of that fact, and sin- 
cerely sympathize with him in his present troubles, but this is the 
proposition he is here to affirm, and I to oppose. I invite your 
attention to his Discipline again. He says I have misrepresented 
it, and do so continually. The gentleman was not himself in his 
last speech, and you must excuse him. I have told you simply what 
the Discipline teaches, notwithstanding that he says it is a "libel on 
his church." If so, then, Cookman, Inskip, and Bishop Bascom have 
libeled the Methodist Church. If the gentleman will keep cool, I will 
tell him once more that the General Conference is composed one-half 
of lay and one-half of clerical members or preachers; that the preach- 
ers have all things as they want them now; that they have got their 
system of despotism established already. Now, suppose the lay 
members in that Conference want to reform this system of tyranny 
which has been raised over them. Suppose they can get just half the 
preachers, less three, in their favor, and are about to carry any reform 
measure before the Conference; now, then, one-fifth of the whole 
Conference, taken from that half of the preachers opposed, can call 
for a division of the house ; then the lay members have to separate, 
and calculate their strength, for the measure must be carried by a 
majority of both branches. Well, the lay members have the majority, 
but the preachers, on separate vote, have two or three majority 
against it; then the measure fails, and a majority of the preachers 
rule the Conference. 

Now, that is the liberty possessed, and there is no misrepresenta- 
tion about it. We give it as it is. I want you to clearly and dis- 
tinctly see it. The Conference is composed of these two classes, the 
lay and clerical members, equally divided, and no measure can pass 
without a concurrent majority of both sides of the house. A ma- 
jority of both sides must vote for the measure. But suppose the 
measure be to overturn this system of tyranny, of course it can not 
be passed without a majority of the preachers. Do you not see that 
the preachers have it in their own hands? I tell you the lay mem- 
bers have no more authority, no more voice, no more power, than 
the subjects of the Czar of all the Russias, and could not vote any 
thing without the preachers. They may be, like Bascom, so demented 
as to accept the system with all its deformities, but there is no liberty 



MR. BROOKS'S THIRD REPLY. 379 

for them. As to this quarterly conference, my friend said that, of 
the stewards and class-leaders, there were generally only two or three 
of them in these conferences. That only makes it worse for him; but 
how does it happen ? There is to be one leader to every twelve mem- 
bers in the church, as required by the Discipline. How, then, does 
it happen that there are only two or three of these ? If the church 
here were to send the full number of class-leaders, they would seud 
more than that. No, sir, they have no power at all. We have 
simply presented the thing as it is in the book. We have not mis- 
represented. He says the preachers are all in the favor of the mem- 
bers, and that I charge him with being dishonest. I do not charge 
him or any body else with dishonesty. That is not the question I am 
arguing. I am not charging him with dishonesty. I simply show 
that he has a bad government, and that, if that bad government 
should some day be filled with bad men, you will see tyranny, such 
as would result if the government of the United States were a des- 
potism, such as is this system. Just make the legislative, judicial, 
and executive departments of this government all one ; make Con- 
gress not only law-makers, but judges and executors of the law, and 
how long will it be before Congress will be filled with a class of men 
who would crush out the liberties of this country ? Their's is just 
exactly such a government. How long will it be before bad men 
get into this? Then he will, with Mr. Inskip and others, acknowl- 
edge that this system results in great harm, sorrow, and trouble to 
the Church. I am not impugning the motives of my friend's Church 
— not for one moment will I do this. 

But again : The church at Lexington, he says, affiliates with the 
American Bible Society, while the church in Winchester does not, 
and therefore we have not the same polity. I have to say again 
that he is mistaken. The church at Lexington does not do any 
such thing, and I make this statement upon the authority of brother 
Wilkes, the preacher of that church. 

He spoke of the decrees that went out from the church at Jerusa- 
lem. You must remember that the apostles were in that conference; 
that they then lived on earth, and were come together there to deter- 
mine questions that were agitating the whole Church. This is no 
model for the gentleman's human and uninspired Councils. But he 
can not find the decrees of this council. I will read them for his 
enlightenment : " Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, 
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God : but that we write 
unto them that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornica- 
tion, and from things strangled, and from blood." Acts xv : 19, 20. 
These are «the decrees ; if they will do him any good, he is welcome 
to them. 

I believe that I have noticed every thing in his last speech, unless 
it be his reference to the fact that Mr. Campbell somewhere said, 
any Christian man might baptize under certain circumstances. Any 



380 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

Christian man, under certain circumstances, has a right to baptize. 
If an humble brother should preach the Gospel, where there is no 
preacher, he has just as much right to do so, and baptize, as any 
preacher. They both preach and baptize by authority of God. But 
if that man were here in Winchester, for order's sake, 1 would prefer 
the preacher to do this. 

We are not trying to get any body into our Church on this occa- 
sion, but to declare the truth. I did give to brother Hiner, and 
some of his brethren, an invitation, at the suggestion of brother Wiles, 
and I have no objection to seeing him obey the Gospel and come into 
the kingdom ; but we are not here to-day for that purpose. My pur- 
pose is to show that the doctrine and polity of the Methodist Church 
do not present a feasible basis of union for all Protestant Christians. 
My friend's object was to prove that it does present such a basis. I 
want to see how he has done it. He says he has a right to put his 
own construction upon the language of his Discipline ; that is, it 
means what it says, but he constructs it dhTerently. Well, I have 
just as much right to put my construction upon it, as he has to put 
his. When I use the term horse, I mean what I say, and he under- 
stands me to mean what I say. When I find words in his Discipline, 
I understand them to mean what I would, if they were in any other 
book ; but he can not understand it so well, because he will not. It 
does not suit him this evening. His Discipline disrobes his members 
of every particle of power under heaven, and yet my friend comes 
here to prove that the doctrine and polity of his Church presents a 
feasible basis for the union of all Protestant Christians. In his last 
two speeches, he did not even make an attempt in this direction. 
He made just two arguments this morning. In one he boasted that 
his Church had a creed. Is there any proof of his proposition in 
that? The Methodist Church has a creed, and therefore presents a 
feasible basis for the union of all Christians! Well, the Presby- 
terian Church has a creed; therefore, the Presbyterian Church pre- 
sents a feasible basis for union. I can see no other logic in it, and 
the gentleman finds no comfort in this fact. 

He presented only one other argument, which he says he never 
made anywhere else. Well, he has said this ; others say otherwise ; 
for I have it from a brother, that it is the same argument he has 
produced before — to-wit: The Presbyterians practice only affusion, 
the Baptists only immersion, and that we Methodists will receive 
the sinner any way he pleases to come ; that is, Ave are the most ac- 
commodating set of people in the world. We do not care what 
the book says, so we get you ; therefore ours is a feasible basis of 
union. 

This is the sum total of his proof, that his Church presents a 
feasible basis for union. Now, has he demonstrated it? Has he 
shown that his doctrine and polity present a feasible basis for union? 



mr. brooks's third reply. 381 

No, sir. There is not a Presbyterian on earth that would leave his 
Presbyterian polity to go to this human system, for the Presby- 
terians claim divinity for their government. Not a Congregationalist 
under heaven would accept it, for they, too, claim divinity for their 
form of polity. 

Now, in a brief manner I want to review the arguments we have 
made against this proposition, and close the debate. 

In the first place, I have shown that union with his Church is im- 
practicable, because John Wesley founded his Church; and therefore 
it is a human affair ; and the gentleman has not denied it. We have 
had it before him two days, and yet he has not denied it once. 

I have shown, from his own bishops, that his Discipline and creed, 
and therefore his Church, are founded upon "the experience of a 
long series of years," and upon "observations and remarks made 
upon ancient and modern churches." Yet he has not denied this, 
or brought it in question. He has not once denied that it is human 
throughout. He began, this morning, by telling you the polity of 
his Church was human. He did more than I expected. I expected 
him to say that Christ had not given any system of government lor 
the church, but he acknowledged Ins to be human. No, he does not 
claim divinity for it. 

He asks my authority for Sunday-schools and prayer-meetings, as 
if the Bible did not tell us to pray, and pray always, to bring up our 
children in the admonition of the Lord, to preach the Gospel to every 
creature. And this is all that is necessary to authorize our work. 

Again : we demonstrated that not an officer in his Church corres- 
ponded with the officers of the primitive Church. The editor of the 
Nashville Christian Advocate, in response to an article in the Protest- 
ant Churchman, says that "Methodism North and South has already 
a Diocesan Episcopacy." Such an officer was unknown in the apos- 
tolic church as, also, elders and deacons as they exist in his 
church. 

In the next place, I have shown you that we could not accept the 
system of the gentleman as a feasible basis of union, because that 
system is a tyranny of the worst possible character. I have proven 
that the preachers make their laws, sit in judgment to decide the im- 
port of these laws, and execute them. The gentleman has not at- 
tempted to deny but one single count of this indictment; that is, that 
the preachers make the laws. He tells us they have only equal liberty 
with the lay delegates in making these laws And then he has at- 
tempted to hide from you the fact that an equal number of preach- 
ers, or that one-half, contained one-fifth of the conference — enough 
to call for a division. Of course, you can get one-fifth of the con- 
ference out of one-half composed of preachers. Now, if the lay 
members want to pass an act contrary to the interest or will of the 
preachers, one-fifth of the conference, one-half of which is composed 



382 BROOKS AND FITCH DEBATE. 

of preachers, can demand a separate vote. And then there must he 
a majority of both sides of the house to make it a law. All the preach- 
ers have to do is to vote against it, and it can not become a law. We 
reiterate the fact, that they make their laws, sit in judgment upon the 
bench, and, more than that, they enforce these laws. If you want a 
grander despotism than this, you will have to cross the Atlantic to 
get it. . 

Again: I have shown, from his own creed, that, with the Roman 
Catholic Church, he claims the right to change and abolish ceremo- 
nies and rites. The usurpations of the Roman Church were no greater 
than the usurpations of his. Rome claimed the right to change the 
ceremonies of the primitive Church, and they changed baptism with 
the rest. This is just what my friend claims the right to do. They 
have, in the next place, adopted, in great measure, the ritualistic 
services of that Church, and retain them to this day, though unscrip- 
tural in every sense. 

To all of this, my friend has not a single word of reply. And 
yet what daring presumption is this! he does not hesitate to do what 
even inspired men, in any age of the world, never dared to do. God 
Almighty, through the inspired apostles, ordained the rites and cere- 
monies of his Church, and left them in the world, and that church 
which interferes with them presumes to usurp the authority of heaven, 
and to trample under foot the power of God. I contend, to-day, that 
this is one of the highest and most fearful counts in the long cata- 
logue of wrongs which stand against his Church on this occasion. 
Can the Avorld consent to a union on a basis like this? 

More than this, I have shown you that his ninth Article of Re- 
ligion is inconsistent with itself and with the word of God, for it 
says we are justified by faith only, when the word of God says "A 
man is justified by works, and not by faith only." He has not made 
even an effort to defend this article, and yet wants us to unite with 
him upon it. I have shown you, again, that his article in reference 
to reconciliation was false, for God sent not his Son to reconcile him- 
self to the world, "but God is in Christ, reconciling the world unto 
himself." I insist that, before the Savior was exalted to the throne 
of God, he had enabled God, by his death, to be just, and yet the 
justifier of guilty man. Now, his influence is used upon the world, 
to reconcile it to God. The death of Jesus enabled him to be just 
to himself, and yet to justify all who believe in him. 

Lastly, I have shown you that his article in reference to baptism 
was untrue, and have asked him for one single reference of Scripture, 
to prove it to be the " mark " of any thing, or a "sign of regeneration." 

He has failed, then, to show that his Church presents a feasible 
basis for Christian union. My candid opinion is that he will never 
try it again, for he has failed so signally that he will himself be sat- 
isfied. 



MR. BROOKS S THIRD REPLY. 



CLOSING REMARKS. 



I thank you, Gentlemen Moderators, for the very patient, candid, 
and earnest manner in which you have presided over this discussion. 
I know we have taxed you heavily. We thank you for your kind- 
ness. To you, fellow-citizens, we are grateful, for you have listened 
to us patiently and kindly during this discussion. We have dis- 
cussed these questions calmly and earnestly, yet, we trust, in the 
spirit of the Lord. We are willing to leave it to your candid judg- 
ment, simply asking you to give what we have said due considera- 
tion. 



7? 



■ 



I 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 
1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




017 685 028 



